SARDAR KHAN vs KHURSHID AHMAD And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that set aside an acquittal and directed a retrial in a murder case. The petitioner was originally tried under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghulam Qadir but was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, on 21-9-1971, based on the benefit of doubt. Subsequently, the complainant filed a revision petition, which remained pending for approximately 14 years before the High Court set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial in 1985. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that a retrial was unwarranted given the circumstances and the inordinate delay. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that a reappraisal of the evidence was necessary to resolve the matter. Consequently, the Court stayed further proceedings in the case pending the final decision of the appeal. The judgment underscores the necessity of judicial scrutiny when High Courts order retrials after significant delays following an initial acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence.
- Is a retrial warranted when a High Court sets aside an acquittal after an inordinate delay of 14 years?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal against a High Court order directing a retrial in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioner was tried of an offence of murder of one, Ghulam Qadir, on 6-1-1971 allegedly over a dispute of land situated near the house. He was tried under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of Ghulam Qadir but was acquitted of the charge by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, on 21-9-1971. The learned Sessions Judge, on the appreciation of evidence, came to hold that he had some lurking doubts regarding the implication of the petitioner in the crime and, therefore, the latter was entitled to benefit of doubt. On a private revision filed by the complainant Khurshid Ahmad, the learned Judge in the High Court set aside the order of the trial Court and retrial of the case was ordered. The revision which was filed in 1972 was decided as per impugned judgment on 16-6-1985, that is, after the lapse of a period of about 14 years. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the retrial of the case was not warranted 'in the facts and circumstances of the case and that too after such an inordinate delay.
2. In our opinion, reappraisal of evidence seems to be necessary in this case. We would, therefore, grant leave. Further proceedings in the case shall remain stayed until the decision of the appeal. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.