ZAFAR HUSSAIN BALOCH Versus EJAZ AHMED
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the brother of the deceased against the acquittal of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 of an offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which acquittal was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the courts below based on doubtful ocular testimony and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the explanation offered by the eye-witnesses regarding their presence at the scene of the occurrence at a late hour was dubious and that the twenty-four-hour delay in reporting the matter remained unexplained. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent orders of acquittal resting on plausible assessments of weak ocular evidence and delayed reporting.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence?
- Does an unexplained delay of twenty-four hours in lodging the First Information Report weaken the prosecution case?
- Is the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of occurrence subject to strict scrutiny when the explanation for their presence is dubious?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑Respondents Nos.2 and 3 were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan of an offence under section 302, read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code but were acquitted. The State preferred an appeal before the High Court but it was dismissed. The petitioner who is the brother of the person killed, seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. According to the prosecution, Muhammad Aslam deceased and respondent No.l quarrelled with each other about a month prior to the occurrence when the former forbade the latter from visiting his shop: To take revenge for this incident, on 19‑8‑86 at 10/11 p.m. respondents Nos.1 to 3 caught hold of the deceased in the area of Chah Goristanwala in village Loothar. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 were armed with hatchets while respondent No.1 had a pistol with him. Respondents Nos.1 and 3 gave hatchet blows to the deceased while respondent No.1 fired‑at him. The left leg of the deceased was severed. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by Zafar Hussain (petitioner) and Pir Bakhsh.
3. The deceased was taken to Nishtar Hospital at Multan where he died on the morning of 21‑8‑86. The occurrence was reported a day earlier on 20‑8‑86 at 10.15 p.m. by Zafar Hussain to A.S.I. Muhammad Aslam at a Petrol Pump in Qadirpur Raan.
4. The case against the respondents depended upon the ocular testimony as well as the recovery of weapons at their instance. The ocular testimony was provided by Zafar Hussain and Pir Bakhsh. The trial Court as well as the High Court were of the view that the explanation offered by the witnesses for their presence at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time was not convincing. After hearing the learned counsel, we are unable to take a different view. The occurrence took place fairly late in the evening far away from the houses of the two eye‑witnesses. This explanation offered by them that they were returning from Qadirpur Raan at the relevant time is dubious. Apart from that there was a delay of 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R. This delay has not been explained satisfactorily. We, therefore, do not think this a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted to examine propriety of the acquittal of respondents 1 to 3. The petition is dismissed.
N.H.Q./Z‑107/S Petition dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2241