MUHAMMAD RAEES vs THE STATE
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner for attempted murder. The petitioner, along with several co-accused, was charged with attacking the complainant party following a property dispute. While the trial court acquitted the co-accused due to a lack of evidence regarding specific overt acts, it convicted the petitioner under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding him responsible for firing the shot that injured the victim. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that his case was indistinguishable from the acquitted co-accused, suggesting he was singled out without corroboration. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the petitioner was specifically identified in the F.I.R. and trial testimony as the individual who fired the effective shot and issued threats. The Court clarified that the acquittal of co-accused based on the absence of active roles does not invalidate the conviction of a principal assailant. Finding no misappreciation of evidence or violation of legal principles, the Court dismissed the petition.
- Does the acquittal of co-accused for lack of specific overt acts necessarily invalidate the conviction of a principal assailant identified by witnesses?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. and trial evidence as the person who fired the effective shot?
- Is the Supreme Court required to reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal where the lower courts have not violated established principles of evidence appraisal?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-According to the prosecution Mst. Naseem Akhtar the wife of Muhammad Anwar succeeded to 30 beghas of land and a house on her father's demise. However, this property was in the possession of Sher Khan, who refused to deliver it. Thereupon Muhammad Anwar instituted a civil suit against him, which was pending in the civil Court. This being the motive, it was alleged that the petitioner, an hour before the incident, threatened Muhammad Anwar to withdraw the suit on pain of dire consequences. Thereafter, at about 4-30 p. m. On 21st December, 1979, while Muhammad Alchmat, his brothers Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar were in the house of Yasin to fetch fodder for the goats, the petitioner alongwith Sher Khan and Fateh Muhammad, all armed with guns, and Ali Muhammad, Saresa and Nadeem carrying hatchets, came there. Thereafter Muhammad Raees, Sher Khan and Fateh Khan climbed on the roof of Muhammad Yasin, a prosecution witness, and from there gave a lalkara that they would teach them a lesson and saying so he fired his gun on Muhammad Ashraf hitting him on his left shoulder.
2. The others fired shots in the air. Muhammad Ashraf had 3 inlet wounds and one exit wound. They were tried by a Section 30 Magistrate, Jhelum, and except for the petitioner, who was held to have fired the shot, the others were acquitted as no overt act was established against them. He was, accordingly, convicted under section 307, P. P. C. And sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000 (one thousand) or in default to undergo R. I. For six months.
3. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, upheld his conviction by judgment dated 25th of June, 1981.
4. The revision in the High Court also failed, as the High Court found no weakness in the evidence to hold otherwise.
5. ' It is now urged before us that the case of the petitioner was no different from those acquitted as all of them were attributed the part of having fired at Muhammad Ashraf. Accordingly, it was a case of merely picking up one of the assailants without there being any corroboration. This contention is without substance as not only in the F. I. R. But also at the trial the part of firing the shot was attributed to the petitioner, and if, at all, there was an exaggeration that all of them had fired that would not render his active participation doubtful. He was again attributed the role of lalkara, and there is also the evidence that he had threatened to teach the complainant party a lesson if they did not withdraw the suit. These features were also amongst others to single him out as an assailant who had fired the effective shot. Here I may point out that others have not been acquitted on the premise of their being falsely implicated, but one the short ground that no active role was attributed to them, and, accordingly they were given the benefit of doubt, The Courts below have appreciated the evidence and we see no justification to reappraise the evidence as there is no violation of any principle of appraisal of evidence. The question was one of belief or disbelief of the witnesses. The petition is without any merit, which is dismissed.