ATA MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ And Other
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted two respondents previously convicted of murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by rejecting the testimony of prosecution witnesses and granting the respondents the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's findings, which determined that the alleged eye-witnesses were interested witnesses requiring corroboration that was not provided, and that the presence of a third witness was doubtful as he was not named in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding no error of law or violation of settled principles of evidence appreciation in the High Court's judgment. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses are deemed interested and lack necessary corroboration, and where the presence of additional witnesses is doubtful, the appellate court is justified in extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused, leading to acquittal.
- Can an appellate court acquit an accused if the prosecution witnesses are found to be interested and lack corroboration?
- Is the testimony of an eye-witness who was not named in the First Information Report liable to be excluded on grounds of propriety and safety?
- Does the failure to point out an error of law or violation of settled principles of evidence appreciation justify the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- These are two petitions for leave to appeal directed against the judgment, dated 3-2-1985 passed by the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1074 of 1980 and Criminal Revision No. 948 of 1980, whereby the appeal filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against their conviction for tire murder of Muhammad Khan deceased under section 302, P.P.C. Wherein the former was sentenced to death and the latter sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali was accepted and they were ordered to be set at liberty. The private revision (Criminal Revision No. 948 of 1980) seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded to Shah Jehan, respondent No. 2 (from life imprisonment to death) was, therefore, automatically dismissed.
2. The facts, which form the background, are that on 9-2-1978 at Jhikki Degarwela the complainant (Ata Muhammad) alongwith his uncle Muhammad Khan (deceased) went out of his house for purchasing household articles. However, when they had reached near the tea shop of Faiz Ali in the Main Bazar, Kundian, the two accused, namely, Muhammad Farooq and Shah Jehan (respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein), who were armed with pistols, suddenly appeared from behind and after raising a Lalkara both of them fired at Muhammad Khan, who fell down after receiving injuries on the back and the left thigh.
3. The occurrence was witnessed besides the complainant (Ata Muhammad P.W.8) by Muhammad, P.W.9, and Muhammad Siddiq, P.W.10 and some others.
4. Muhammad Khan deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital, Kundian, where he died on account of the injuries sustained at the hands of the above-named two accused. Both of them were accordingly, tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali. They were held guilty of murder and the learned trial Judge convicted both of them under section 302, P.P.C. Muhammad Farooq (respondent No.1) was sentenced to death plus a fine of ds.2,000 (or in default one year's R.I.) and Shah Jehan (respondent No. 2) to life imprisonment plus a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to undergo one year further R.I.
5. The respondents appealed against their conviction. A private revision was also filed by the present petitioner for enhancement of Shah Jehan's sentence from life imprisonment to death. The case was also referred by the learned trial Court for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on respondent No.1.
6. The High Court considered all the three matters together and recorded a well-considered judgment. It found, in sum, that Ata Muhammad, P.W.8 and Muhammad P.W.9 (the two alleged eye-witnesses were interested witnesses and their testimony required corroboration but no proper corroboration was forthcoming. As regards the so-called 3rd eye-witness, Muhammad Siddiq, his presence at the spot was considered doubtful. In this connection, it was observed that he was not named in the First Information Report (Exh. P.B.) made by Ata Muhammad, P W.8 and that it appeared that he (Muhammad Siddiq) was introduced as an eye-witness to bolster up the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, his testimony was excluded on the grounds of 'propriety and safety'.
7. In the result both the respondents were found entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
8. These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed to question the above order of acquittal of the respondents.
9. We have heard Sh. Zafar Mahmood, Advocate in support of these petitions. He has not been able to point any error of law or violation of any settled principle of appreciation of evidence by the High Court which could have led to any miscarriage of justice. These petitions must, therefore, fail and are dismissed hereby.