JUMO vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which set aside the trial court's acquittal order and convicted the petitioner under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing sodomy on a 14-year-old boy. The core issue was whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal based on its re-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court observed that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court possesses the authority to review evidence and form its own conclusion, provided it duly considers the trial court's reasoning. The Court noted that the victim's testimony was corroborated by immediate medical examination confirming semen on swabs from the victim and petitioner, alongside the prompt arrest. Holding that appreciation of evidence is not ordinarily undertaken by the Supreme Court absent a serious disregard of established principles, the Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition.
- Does the High Court have the authority to re-appreciate evidence and reverse an order of acquittal in an appeal filed by the State?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with lower court findings on the appreciation of evidence?
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. HAMOODUR RABMAN, C. J.-The petitioner has been convicted under section 377, P. P. C. For committing sodomy on a boy of 14 years and sentenced to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan after setting aside his acquittal in respect of the said charge by the A. C. M. No. X of Karachi.
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition contends that the High Court should not have set aside the acquittal, as the acquittal by the Magistrate was based on cogent reasons.
3. The acquittal appeal before the High Court had been filed by the State and as in such an appeal the facts were open to the High Court and it could form its own opinion upon the evidence, although it naturally had to give due weight and consideration to the views of the trial' Court which had the opportunity to see the witnesses. In the present case, the Nigh Court has done that and dealt with each of the reasons given by the Magistrate for the acquittal.
4. The evidence in this case was straight forward. The petitioner had been arrested almost immediately after he committed the illegal act and taken to the police station. Examination of the swa bs taken from the anus of the boy and the urethra of the petitioner were both found to contain semen. This confirmed that the petitioner had committed the sexual act shortly before.
5. The victim concerned was not a habitual catamite and since he had no reason at all to falsely implicate the petitioner, this was a sufficient corroboration of his evidence and, therefore; the acquittal by the. Magistrate was not justified.
6. All the points raised in this case relate merely to the appreciation of evidence and this is not a function undertaken by this Court unless there is some serious disregard of the principles governing the appreciation of evidence. No such defect has been pointed out to us. We, therefore, see no reason for interference, This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs Abdullah And 2 Others 1992 P Cr. L J 858