SU A LI H OON vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which had resulted in a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment by a Magistrate, and was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Lahore High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in appreciating the evidence and sustaining the conviction where the petitioner failed to offer a reasonable explanation for possessing stolen articles and falsely alleged enmity with the Investigating Officer. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that sufficient legal evidence sustained the conviction, noting the lack of any claim of ownership or reasonable explanation regarding the stolen property, and the falsehood of the alleged enmity. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent findings based on legal evidence regarding possession of stolen property without a plausible explanation will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
- Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal petition where concurrent findings of guilt have been rendered by the lower courts?
- Does a conviction under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 stand when the accused fails to give a reasonable explanation for possession of stolen articles?
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J.-- The petitioner herein was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment by a Magistrate exercising powers under section 30 by order dated the 19th February, 1983. His conviction and sentence was upheld not only by the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, but also by the High Court while dismissing his revision in limine.
2. We have examined the record and judgments of the Courts below and we find that there is legal evidence to sustain his conviction on that charge. It will be of relevance to mention here that he did not claim the stolen articles to be his nor did he give any reasonable explanation as to how he came into possession of those articles. His only defence was that he was falsely implicated because of his enmity with the Investigating Officer. But on questioning the counsel appearing on his behalf it transpires that the Investigating Officer is not the one with whom he had alleged enmity.
3. ' There is, accordingly, no reason for us to reappraise the evidence and finding no force in this petition we dismiss it.