HAFIZ Versus STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner-complainant against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondent of a charge under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after the trial court had initially convicted him while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's appreciation of evidence and the grant of the benefit of the doubt to the respondent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's judgment was well-discussed and based on a proper appreciation of evidence, noting that the testimony of the sole injured witness required strong corroboration given the acquittal of co-accused and failure to examine material eye-witnesses, which corroboration was lacking. The petition raised no substantial question of law and was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the testimony of a sole injured witness requires strong corroboration when co-accused are acquitted and material eye-witnesses are not examined?
- Does the High Court's appreciation of evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court when based on sound reasoning and benefit of the doubt?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when no substantial question of law is raised from the acquittal judgment?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.-- The petitioner, who was the complainant in the case against the respondent and three others, has brought this petition seeking leave to appeal from the impugned judgment of the learned High Court, acquitting the respondent of a charge under section 307, P.P.C.
2. Respondent Idrees was tried alongwith co-accused Babuddin, Sodagar and Farid, for offences punishable under sections 307, 324, 342 and 504/34, P.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tharparker. The respondent alone was convicted by the trial Court and the other three co-accused were acquitted. The judgment of the trial Court was successfully challenged by the respondent before the High Court, who was acquitted of the charge giving him benefit of doubt.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court. The names of five eye-witnesses were mentioned in the F.I.R. out of which two alleged eye-witnesses Jamil and Ibrahim were not examined by the prosecution. The evidence of the complainant and the other alleged eye-witness Basru was not believed by the trial Court and reliance, in the circumstances, was placed entirely on the statement of the injured witness Umer Din. There was no recovery of any crime weapon. The learned High Court found that the injured witness Umer Din had implicated as many as four persons, out of whom three were related to respondent 1drees, as such his evidence could not be accepted without strong corroboration, which was found lacking in the case.
4. The judgment of the learned High Court is well-discussed and is based on appreciation of evidence. No question of law is raised in the petition, which may require consideration and hence the same is dismissed.
M . Y . H . /H-31/ S Petition dismissed.