ZOHAR KHAN Versus AMIR ABULLAH KHAN
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed his revision petition directed against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent of charges under section 324/34, Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had initially convicted the respondent, but the Sessions Judge accepted the respondent's appeal and acquitted him while dismissing the petitioner's revision for enhancement of sentence and retrial. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference was warranted against concurrent findings of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the acquittal, founded on the proper appreciation of evidence, raised no question of law justifying interference. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on evidence where no substantial question of law arises, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence?
- Can a revision petition against an acquittal be entertained when no question of law arises?
- Is the benefit of doubt properly extended when the first appellate court identifies material infirmities in the record?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J .--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby his revision petition against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali was dismissed.
2. The respondent Amir Abdullah was tried by the Assistant Commissioner/ Magistrate 1st Class, Mianwali, alongwith his co-accused Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and Mst. Sarwar Bibi for an offence under section 324/34, P.P.C. for injuring complainant /petitioner Zohar Khan, convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000 or in default three months' R.I. The other two lady accused were acquitted. The respondent thereupon filed a criminal appeal against his conviction whereas a criminal revision was filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent as also for re-trial of the two acquitted accused. The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 9-3-1982, dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner, accepted the appeal of the respondent and acquitted him. The matter was further taken up by the petitioner to the High Court in revision which was dismissed in limine as per impugned order.
3. The learned High Court, on the perusal of the record, found that the infirmities pointed out by the First Appellate Court in its judgment were borne out from the record and the respondent was rightly acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt.
We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgments passed in the case. There is concurrent finding of the two learned Courts on the question of acquittal of the respondent, which are based on appreciation of evidence and no question of law arises in the matter. The petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.
M . I . / Z-17/ S Petition dismissed.