REHMAT ALI vs NAZIR AHMAD AND OTHERS
Rehmat Ali sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of murder charges. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding interested witnesses, material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and delayed recoveries in a criminal trial stemming from prior enmity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the convictions and recording an acquittal, given that the complainant's testimony suffered from significant improvements and contradictions inconsistent with the medical evidence, a related witness was declared hostile, and numerous innocent persons had been falsely implicated due to deep-rooted animosity between the parties. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is riddled with material improvements and contradictions at variance with medical evidence, and is further tainted by mala fide implication of multiple innocent individuals, the appellate court's judgment of acquittal warrants no interference.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment of the High Court when the ocular account contradicts the medical evidence?
- Does an interested witness making significant improvements to align with medical testimony render their evidence valueless for sustaining a conviction?
- Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness when multiple co-accused have been falsely implicated due to prior enmity?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C. J.-Rehmat Ali seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4th July, 1982, by which respondents Nasir Ahmad and Habib Ahmad were acquitted.
2. ' The facts, which have given rise to this petition, are that these two respondents alongwith eight other persons were alleged to have waylaid Muhammad Sharif, the son of Rehmat All (P. W. 7) and Allah Din at Maghrib prayers' time on 28th of March, 1975, and from amongst them Nasir Ahmad and Habib Ahmad fired rifle shots at them and caused their death. Rehmat Ali lodged the report at 8-30 p. m. At Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala.
3. ' The motive imputed was that about 8 or 9 months before the incident one Nabi Ahmad a co- villager was murdered and in that murder case these respondents appeared as prosecution witnesses whereas the deceased Muhammad Sharif was examined as a defence witness.
4. Thereafter the parties quarrelled and cross-cases were registered against each other. Again Sanaullah, a brother of Nabi Ahmad, was arrested for being found in possession of an unlicensed fire arm and in that connection Nasir Ahmad and Muhammad Akbar, acquitted accused, were interrogated, and for this Nasir Ahmad suspected that it was deceased Muhammad Sharif, who had given the information which ultimately led to the seizure of an unlicensed fire-arm.
5. ' From the spot one bullet case of a rifle was recovered, which matched with the unlicensed rifle produced at the behest of Nasir Ahmad from his house on 28th of April, 1975. This seizure was made eight days after his arrest_ on 20th of April, 1075.
6. ' The trial Court acquitted the other eight co-accused on the ground that though they were armed with Sotas yet no specific role was attributed to them, therefore, there was a possibility of their false implication. As for the respondents, the trial Court held them to be guilty of the murders of Muhammad Sharif and Allah Din, and while convicting them under section 302, P. P. C. Read with section 34, P. P. C. Sentenced Nasir Ahmed to death and Habib Ahmed to imprisonment for life as no recovery was made at his instance. They were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 5,000 each or in default to suffer R. I. For three years. One-half of the fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr. P. C.
7. On appeal and reference, the High Court rejected the recovery of the rifle on the grounds : firstly, that the recovery witnesses were not examined to establish this fact ; and, secondly, that there was no evidence to sustain that the rifle was sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination. Here it may also be mentioned that the counsel for the State as well as the Complainant also conceded that this recovery should not be taken into consideration. Despite it, the counsel for the petitioner urged that the matching of the empty with the rifle should be accepted as corroboration against the participation of Nasir Ahmad, but we do not find any substance in this contention for the reasons given by the High Court. Allah Ditta (P. W. 8), who was supposed to be a disinterested witness, did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. Thereafter the case rested on the testimony of Rehmat All and Aziz Ahmad, who were allegedly following the two deceased. As for Rehmat Ali, the High Court held that he made improvements in his evidence to fit in with the medical evidence, in that ; firstly, that he had only stated about three shots having been fired in the F. I. R. One by Habib Ahmad and two by Nasir, whereas the medical evidence showed that Muhammad Sharif suffered as many as for shots while Allah Din only one. Secondly, it was stated in the F. I. R. That Allah Din was hit from in front, but at the trial this version was altered as it did not fit in with the medical evidence which established that the deceased was fired at from behind. Thirdly, Muhammad Hussain, one of the acquitted co-accused, was assigned the role of having fired from his revolver at one of the deceased, which was not so stated in the F. I. R. There were other contradictions which it is not necessary to highlight them at this stage but the High Court did take notice of them as to the manner in which the injuries were caused to the two deceased.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that the finding of the High Court that Rehmat All had made significant improvements in his evidence could not be denied. He, however, relied on the statement of Aziz Ahmad, a brother of Muhammad Sharif, but in his statement we have found numerous contradictions and omissions, which render the quality of his evidence valueless for sustaining the guilt of the two respondents. It was a case where there was enmity between the parties, and considering that eight innocent persons were implicated and that the version given in the F. I. R. Qua the role assigned to these respondents also did not coincide with the medical evidence, the High Court was justified in taking the view as it did by recording acquittal.
9. ' There is, therefore, no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.