BARKAT ALI vs THE STATE And Another
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent, Umra, by the High Court for an offence under Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent was originally tried alongside five others; while four co-accused were convicted, the respondent was acquitted by the High Court, which upheld the convictions of the others based on corroboration of interested eye-witness testimony through medical evidence and motive. The petitioner contended that the respondent also possessed a motive that should have served as sufficient corroboration for the eye-witness testimony against him. The Supreme Court examined the record to determine whether there was evidence to support the petitioner's claim regarding the respondent's motive. Upon review, the Court found that the petitioner failed to point to any evidence on the record substantiating the existence of such motive for the respondent. Consequently, the Court held that there was no basis to interfere with the High Court's acquittal of the respondent, as the necessary corroboration was absent. The petition was dismissed.
- Can the conviction of co-accused be maintained when eye-witnesses are interested but corroborated by medical evidence and motive?
- Is the absence of evidence regarding motive sufficient grounds to uphold an acquittal where corroboration of interested witnesses is required?
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Barkat Ali petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of Umra respondent of offence under section 325, P.P.C. He was tried alongwith 5 others including Mansha. Mansha was acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate but the remaining 5 were convicted under section 325/148. P.P.C. Under the former offence they were sentenced to 5 years each. On appeal the High Court acquitted all of them of the charge under section 148, P.P.C. It also acquitted Umra respondent of the charge under section 325, P.P.C. But dismissed the appeal of the remaining 4 co-accused, with respect to that charge.
2. Hence the present petition against the acquittal of Umra respondent of the charge under section 325, P.P.C.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment.
3. We notice that the High Court held that the eye-witnesses in the case were admittedly interested but it maintained the conviction of 4 co-accused on the ground that there was sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the eye-witnesses qua them, by way of the medical evidence and the motive.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that it was proved on the record that Umra respondent, to, had sufficient motive to join in the commission of the offence, which would be used as corroboration of the testimony of the eye-witnesses against him. But when asked to indicate any portion of the evidence of the record supporting this contention, he was unable to do so. We do not, therefore, find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment acquitting Umra respondent.