STATE Versus ZAMARRUD BEGUM
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against a judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents had been initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for their alleged role in holding the deceased while a co-accused inflicted a fatal knife injury. The core legal question was whether the High Court's acquittal, based on an appreciation of evidence regarding the lack of pre-concert or common intention, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's decision was based on a sound appreciation of evidence. The Court affirmed that where the prosecution fails to establish common intention or pre-concert, and the incident appears to have occurred suddenly without prior enmity, convictions based on constructive liability cannot be sustained. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's factual findings when no substantial question of law is presented.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment based solely on the appreciation of evidence where no question of law arises?
- Can a conviction based on constructive liability be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish common intention or pre-concert between the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J. --According to the prosecution story, the co-accused Abdul Jabbar had caused knife injury to Abdul Razzak resulting in his death. The accused pleaded not guilty at the trial, but were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi under section 302/ 34, P . P . C . and sentenced to 10 years' R.I. each. On appeal to the High Court, the respondents were acquitted of the charge and their conviction was set aside as per impugned judgment. The State has now brought this petition for leave to appeal from the impugned judgment of the High Court.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court. It was Abdul Jabbar deceased, who had taken out Chhuri from the fold of his pant and attacked the deceased Abdul Razzak. The role assigned to the present respondents was that they had caught hold of the deceased. The learned High Court, on appreciation of evidence, camel to hold that the incident had occurred suddenly and there was no previous enmity between the accused and the deceased and even according to F .I. R. , no case was made out of any pre-concert or common intention between Abdul Jabbar and the respondents. On such appraisal of evidence, it was held by the learned High Court that the case against the respondents had not been established and the prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon for convicting the respondents on the constructive liability.
3. The judgment of the learned High Court is based on appreciation of evidence and no question of law arises in the Petition, which is, dismissed.
M . Y . H . /S-109/ S Petition dismissed.