BASHIR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting respondents Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Suleman, Muhammad Shafique, and Muhammad Siddique of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after they had been convicted by the trial court. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of ocular testimony, motive, and recovery evidence in a criminal trial involving a nighttime murder where torches were not mentioned in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly evaluated the evidence, noting that the recovery evidence and ocular testimony could not be safely relied upon due to the dark night occurrence and the introduction of torches as an afterthought. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of an appellate court regarding the unreliability of ocular and recovery evidence in nighttime offences will not be interfered with absent substantial legal error.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment of the High Court based on the appreciation of ocular and recovery evidence?
- Can ocular testimony be relied upon in a nighttime occurrence when the use of a source of light like a torch is omitted from the First Information Report?
- Does the presence of a motive alone suffice to maintain a conviction when the direct evidence has been disbelieved by the appellate court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.- - This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Bashir Ahmad complainant-petitioner and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8th March, 1982.
2. Respondents Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Suleman, Muhammad Shafique and Muhammad Siddique were tried for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C. The trial Court convicted Muhammad Tahir and Muhammad Suleman respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life plus fine. The other two, i.e. Muhammad Shafique and Muhammad Siddique respondents were acquitted. In appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore both Muhammad Tahir and Muhammad Suleman respondents were also acquitted.
3. The deceased in this case is Muhammad Shafique. The occurrence took place at 9 p.m. on 21st April, 1976. The F.I.R. was .lodged on the next day. From Muhammad Tahir respondent was recovered human blood-stained shirt and Dhoti, whereas from Muhammad Suleman respondent was recovered human blood-stained hatchet. There are three eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Bashir Ahmad father of the deceased, Allah Rakha uncle of the deceased and Hidayat Ali a chance witness. The motive is that Taj Din father of Muhammad Suleman respondent had been murdered in 1967. One Khaliq and others were challaned. Khaliq absconded from the jail and was declared proclaimed offender. Muhammad Anwar provided secret information to the complainant party about Khaliq's whereabouts. The police went to arrest him but he was murdered in police encounter. In order to take revenge a brother of Khalio deceased murdered the said Muhammad Anwar. The respondents in order to avenge the murder of Tai Din wanted to commit the murder of Muhammad Shafique son of Ghulam Qadir but the present deceased came to know about their planning and informed the said Mohammad Shafique about the conspiracy of the respondents. Thus, the respondents bore a grudge against the deceased and while the deceased stood in front of his house they launched an attack and murdered him. According to the prosecution story when the deceased alongwith the eye-witnesses was returning to his village, he was waylaid by the accused party. Two of them were armed with hatchets, whereas the third armed with a stick and the fourth was empty handed. Muhammad Shafique and Muhammad Siddique respondents caught hold of the deceased by his arms and the remaining two inflicted blows on the head of the deceased. The appellate Court did neither relied upon the recovery evidence nor believed the ocular testimony. It was a night time occurrence and the night was dark. The witnesses introduced torch in their statements although this was not mentioned in the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that the accused party had motive to murder the deceased, that the recoveries should have been believed as the eye-witnesses account of the occurrence was being corroborated by the recovery evidence. These arguments had also been advanced before the appellate Court and have been properly attended to.
5. We have heard the learned counsel at some length but in our considered opinion no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment. This petition is consequently dismissed.
6. M . I . / B-18 / S Petition dismissed.