PIRAN DITTA Versus QADIR BUX
This matter arises from two petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction of the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and acquitted them of the murder of Shah Muhammad. The prosecution alleged that the respondents attacked and killed the deceased due to a motive stemming from his marriage to a widow whose hand had been rejected by one of the respondents. The trial court had convicted the respondents based on ocular testimony and weapon recoveries. However, the High Court acquitted them after finding that the motive was unestablished, the eye-witnesses lacked satisfactory explanation for their presence, the recovery evidence was doubtful, and the investigating officer was dishonest. The core legal question was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence warranting acquittal suffered from any legal infirmity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided substantial reasons for rejecting the ocular and recovery evidence and for finding the motive unproved. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that no case for granting leave was made out and dismissed the petitions, affirming the acquittal.
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a murder conviction when ocular testimony and motive were found to be doubtful?
- Does the rejection of recovery evidence and the finding of a dishonest investigation provide sufficient grounds to maintain an acquittal?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 26-4-83 of the Lahore High Court whereby the conviction of the respondents under section 302, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code, recorded by the Sessions Judge at Bahawalpur, was set aside and they were acquitted. The petitioner is a nephew of Shah Muhammad who was alleged to have been killed by the respondents.
2. One Mst. Ghulam Fatima was a widow. She owned about 60 bighas of land. On account of the property owned by her a number of persons including Qadir Bakhsh, respondent, wanted to marry her but she rejected their suits and instead married Shah Muhammad deceased. The respondents were alleged to be unhappy over this marriage. This was stated to be the motive for the occurrence.
3. It was alleged by the prosecution that on 27-4-80, at about Maghrib time, Shah Muhammad deceased was busy in irrigating his land. The respondents came there. Qadir Bakhsh and Iqbal were carrying chhuris while Muhammad Aslam and Nazir Ahmad were armed with hatchets. They attacked the deceased with their weapons and in the process cut off his hands. On hearing the alarm, Khan Muhammad (PW9) and Piran Ditta, cousin and nephew of the deceased, and one Rafiq reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Shah Muhammad deceased died shortly after receipt of the injuries. Piran Ditta went to Police Station Bahawalpur and lodged the first information report at 10 P.M. During the course of investigation the respondents were alleged to have helped the police in recovering their weapons which were later found to be stained with human blood.
4. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge of causing the death of the deceased and alleged that they had been falsely implicated. They did not produce any witness in their defence.
5. At the trial the prosecution relied upon the testimony of Piran Ditta (PW8) and Khan Muhammad (PW9) as well as the evidence relating to the recovery of blood-stained weapons. The trial Court found the ocular as well as the recovery evidence credible and accordingly convicted the respondents of an offence under section 302, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to pay fines.
6. On appeal by the respondents, the High Court found that the motive had not been established; that the eye-witnesses belonged to a different village and had no satisfactory explanation for their presence at the spot at the relevant time and that the recovery evidence was of doubtful validity. It also observed that the investigating officer had been dishonest. Accordingly, it accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents and acquitted them of the charge against them.
7. We have heard the learned counsel and find that the High Court has given substantial reason for not accepting the ocular testimony and rejecting the recovery evidence. There was also sufficient basis for taking the view that the motive had not been satisfactorily proved. In the circumstances, no case for the grant of leave has been made out. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.
M .I /P-241 S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.