GHULAM ABBAS Versus BAGGU
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which acquitted respondents 1 to 10 of charges under sections 302, 307, 149, 148, 324, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents, finding the occurrence to be a free fight, but the High Court set aside the convictions, holding that the respondents had acted in the exercise of their right of self-defence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding the right of self-defence and the acquittal of the respondents warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view that the incident involved self-defence was probable and not perverse, and therefore declined to interfere with the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court's finding of self-defence, if based on cogent reasons and a plausible view of the evidence, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on the right of self-defence when the High Court's view is probable and not perverse?
- Does the presence of injuries on both sides support a plea of self-defence in a criminal altercation?
- How are testimonies of close relatives who are also injured witnesses evaluated in criminal cases?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. DAVID IQBAL, J .‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, whereby respondents 1 to 10 had been acquitted. These respondents alongwith one Ajmal who died during the trial were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan for offences under sections 302/307/149/148/324/325, P.P.C. and vide his judgment dated 30th January, 1986 they were convicted and sentenced as follows: Khair Muhammad and Baggu respondents were convicted under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine. The remaining respondents were convicted under section 325, P.P. C. and each of them was sentenced to seven years' R.1, plus fine. On appeal the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench as stated above acquitted all of them.
2. The deceased in this case is Altaf Hussain, and five persons have been injured on the complainant side namely Abdul Wahid, Imdad Hussain, Liaqat Ali, Mushtaq Hussain and Safdar Hussain. They are closely related to the deceased and also eye‑witnesses except Imdad Hussain. The occurrence took place at Maghrabwela on 10th May, 1980. F.I.R. was lodged on the same day a few hours later, None of the recoveries made from the members of the accused party was found to be stained with blood. From the accused side four persons had been injured namely Mst. Karam Khatun, Baggu, Mir Muhammad arid Jamshed respondents. The number of injuries sustained by the complainant side including the deceased is sixteen. The head injury on the person of the deceased proved fatal and all the other injuries caused in this case to the complainant side were simple. On the accused side the total number of injuries sustained by the aforementioned three respondents and Mat. Karam Khatun is twenty- three. On both the sides injuries have been caused with blunt weapon. No motive has been given in the F.I.R. but in the course of trial it was alleged that 23 years before the present occurrence father of Baggu respondent was murdered by the deceased in this case and his relatives and that this was the cause of occurrence, The trial Court had proceeded to convict and sentence the respondents after arriving at the conclusion that the occurrence was a free fight but the High Court had advanced cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the respondents had acted in the exercise of their right of self‑defence. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted t4 argue that according to the eye‑witnesses, account of the injured P.Ws. the accused party was aggressor and had come armed. But the ocular testimony although of injured P.Ws. comes forth from very close relatives of the deceased like uncle, cousin, nephew and sister's son.
3. After going through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel our opinion is that the High Court's decision is not perverse and that the view adopted by the High Court to the effect that it was a case of self‑defence was probable and could be taken. In that view of the matter it is not a fit case for interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
4. M.I./G‑84/S Petition dismissed.