MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Another vs Mst. SABRAN And Another
This matter concerns two criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents, Mst. Sabran and Muhammad A.I, of charges related to the murder of the deceased, Muhammad Saeed. The respondents were initially convicted by the Sessions Judge under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on ocular testimony and recovery evidence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appellate appraisal of evidence by disbelieving the prosecution witnesses and rejecting the recovery evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the High Court correctly applied established principles of evidence appraisal. The appellate court had reasonably concluded that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was not credible, and that the recovery of incriminating items was inconsistent with the conduct of the accused. The Supreme Court affirmed that where the High Court has appraised evidence in accordance with settled legal principles, there is no ground for interference in an acquittal.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal where the High Court has appraised the evidence in accordance with established principles?
- Is the testimony of chance witnesses who lack a plausible reason for their presence at the scene of the crime sufficient to sustain a conviction?
- Does the recovery of incriminating evidence from an accused become unreliable if the accused's conduct in destroying other evidence suggests a higher level of caution?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.-- There are two connected criminal petitions for leave to appeal before us namely Criminal Petition No.635 of 1980 and Criminal Petition No.636 of 1980. Both of them have been filed against Mst. Sabran respondent and Muhammad A.I respondent, and are directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore acquitting Mst. Sabran respondent and Muhammad A.I respondents. As these petitions arise out of the same judgment, these are being taken up and disposed of together.
2. Briefly the facts are that Mst. Sabran and Muhammad A.I respondents were tried by the Sessions Judge, Jhang under section 201/302/34, PPC for the murder of Muhammad Saeed deceased husband of Mst. Sabran respondent and vide judgment dated 2nd February, 1978 Muhammad A.I respondent was sentenced to death plus fine under sections 302/34, PPC and to three years' RI plus fine under sections 201/34, PPC, whereas Mst. Sabran respondent was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine under sections 302/34, PPC and to three years' RI plus fine under sections 201/34 PPC. The Lahore High Court Lahore vide its Judgment dated 23rd October, 1979 in appeal acquitted both the respondents giving them the benefit of doubt.
3. The occurrence took place at 11 p.m. On 15th April, 1976 in the area of Ratta Matta, Police Station Qadir Pur, District Jhang. First Information Report was lodged by Azmat PW at 10 a.m. On 16th April, 1976. The respondents were arrested on 16th April, 1976. From Muhammad A.I respondent was recovered blood-stained Toka and blood-stained Chadar but these recoveries had not been relied upon. There are two witnesses of the occurrence namely Azmat and Sultan PWs, who had also not been relied upon as they were chance witnesses. The deceased had four injuries on his person caused with sharp-edged weapon. The motive is that Mst. Sabran respondent had illicit relationship with Muhammad A.I respondent and that she alongwith her paramour murdered her husband Muhammad Saeed deceased. The prosecution version is that Azmat and Sultan PWs were returning to the village at 11 p.m. On the fateful night when they heard alarm from the Jhugi of the deceased. They saw Muhammad A.I respondent injuring the deceased with Toka while Mst.
4. Sabran respondent was holding his legs. Then they saw that both the respondents carried the dead body of the deceased on a cot to a nearby cattle shed and then Muhammad A.I respondent set fire to it in order to destroy the evidence. The trial Court seems to have relied upon the ocular testimony and also considered the recoveries as reliable but the appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that the ocular testimony did not inspire confidence as the two witnesses were mere chance witnesses who had no reason to be passing by the Jhugi of the deceased at 11 p.m. On the fateful night. Therefore they were disbelieved by the appellate court. The trial court also considered the recovery evidence as unreliable for the reason that if the two respondents were careful enough to destroy the dead body of the deceased by setting it afire then they, at least Muhammad A.I respondent, could have not kept with him blood-stained Toka and clothes.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-complainants argued that the eye-witnesses should have been relied upon in the instant case and that the recoveries should have also been believed, but in our view the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court, Lahore appraised the evidence in this case in accordance with the well-established principles, and therefore there is no ground for interference.
6. In that view of the matter both the Criminal Petitions (Nos. 635 and 636 of 1980) are hereby dismissed.