MUHAMMAD BOOTA Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the High Court, which had upheld the acquittal of the respondents by the Sessions Judge in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the High Court's judgment was brief and failed to adequately address the plea of self-defence that the trial court had accepted. The Supreme Court examined the trial court's judgment to determine if the reasoning regarding the plea of self-defence was sound and whether a reappraisal of the evidence was warranted. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had provided an elaborate and cogent analysis for accepting the plea of self-defence and acquitting the respondents. Consequently, the Court determined that the case did not merit the grant of leave to appeal solely for the purpose of reappraising evidence to challenge the trial court's findings on the plea of self-defence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the reappraisal of evidence regarding a plea of self-defence?
- Is a High Court judgment upholding an acquittal necessarily defective if it does not extensively discuss a plea of self-defence already elaborated upon by the trial court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. --Muhammad Boota petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 14-12-1982 whereby it upheld the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari acquitting all the respondents in a case inter alia under section 302/34, PPC .
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. The main plea raised by the learned counsel for petitioner was that the judgment of the High Court was very brief and sketchy and that it had not even adverted to plea of self-defence, which had been accepted as correct by the trial Court. We, therefore, perused the judgment of the learned trial Court to see what reasons had prevailed with it for accepting the plea of self-defence and to consider whether a different conclusion could be reached even if the matter was reheard and .the evidence on the record was reappraised, by the High Court for determining the correctness or otherwise of the trial Courts view on tile plea of self-defence.
3. We are of the view that the learned trial Court has recorded an elaborate judgment and has given cogent reasons for accepting the plea of self-defence and acquitting the respondents. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for grant of leave merely for reappraisal of evidence for considering the correctness or otherwise of the plea of defence.
Leave is consequently refused.
M.I/M-284/S Petition dismissed.