ALI HASAN vs THE STATE And 4 Other
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 26-11-1981, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reversing their conviction by the Sessions Judge, Dadu. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and granting the benefit of the doubt based on admitted enmity and a conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly granted the benefit of the doubt to the accused as such doubts accrued from the prosecution case itself, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal order passed by the High Court when the benefit of the doubt is founded on legitimate weaknesses inherent in the prosecution's case.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment based on the benefit of the doubt?
- Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony justify setting aside a conviction?
- Can admitted enmity between parties form a basis for granting the benefit of the doubt in a criminal trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 26-11-1981 allowing an appeal filed by respondents 1 to 4 and in result acquitting them of the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. For which they were held guilty by the Sessions Judge, Dadu.
2. The report of the crime was lodged by petitioner Ali Hassan son of Dilawar deceased on 16-4-1977 at 9-00 a.m. At Rukkan Police Station, Dadu. According to the version of the incident stated in the F.I.R., petitioner, his father Dilawar, his cousin Nawas and Ghulam Rasool were going to their village when the four respondents suddenly confronted them. Arz Muhammad and Bashir respondents were armed with pistols, Jamal respondent had a hatchet and Faiz Muhammad respondent was empty-handed. On the instigation of Faiz Muhammad, Arz Muhammad opened the attack and fired his pistol at Dilawar which was followed by another fire by Bashir. The two co-accused threatened the petitioner and his party men not to come near. On their cries, however, villagers including Din Muhammad and Ali Bux reached the scene upon which the culprits ran away.
3. At the trial, prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of four P.Ws. All Hassan, Ali Nawas, Ali Sher and Ghulam Rasool; and the evidence in corroboration of P.W. Din Muhammad and Ali Bux. Apart from this, reliance was placed on the circumstantial evidence of recoveries of crime pistols from Arz Muhammad and Bashir accused and hatchet from Jamal accused. The motive of the crime was that about 10 months earlier Shamul son of Faiz Muhammad accused was injured in a fight with Dilawar who was challaned in the case. He was released on bail about six months before the incident, and it is stated that the accused committed the crime in order to seek revenge.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, Dadu, who tried the case did not rely upon the circumstantial evidence of alleged recoveries of the crime weapons from the accused but he believed the ocular testimony and accordingly held all the accused guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. For which he awarded death sentence to accused Arz Muhammad and Bashir and life imprisonment to the co- accused.
5. On a joint appeal filed by the convicts and on reference for the confirmation of death sentences, learned Judges in the High Court however held that, in view of the fact that there was admitted enmity between the accused and the complainant-party, and also that there was conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony, the case against the appellant was not established beyond doubt, and on this view of the case, they set aside the conviction and the sentences recorded against the accused, and allowed the appeal.
6. After having gone through the record of the case we find that the High Court has granted the benefit of doubt to the accused on the basis of legitimate doubts that accrue from the prosecution case itself, and there is, therefore, no valid justification for this Court to interfere.
7. For these 'reasons the petition is dismissed.