ABDUL AZIZ vs GHULAM SHABBIR and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Aziz against the acquittal of several respondents by the Lahore High Court, following their initial conviction by the trial court for murder and related offences. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court committed any error, ignored material evidence, or violated settled principles regarding the interference with a judgment of acquittal when it set aside the convictions based on material improvements and contradictions in the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petition was without force as the petitioner merely sought a reappraisal of evidence, which is not warranted against an acquittal when the High Court's findings are based on a proper evaluation and application of established legal principles regarding witness credibility. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court's judgment of acquittal founded on plausible reasoning and the rejection of untrustworthy evidence due to material improvements and contradictions will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the petitioner seeks a mere reappraisal of evidence?
- Does the rejection of evidence by the High Court due to material improvements and contradictions warrant interference in appeal?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an acquittal when the appellate court has properly evaluated the evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 367, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Abdul Aziz son of Ghulam Rasool, Baloch, resident of Trinda Basharat, District Bahawalpur, has filed this petition for leave to appeal against fifteen persons but the learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that he was not pressing the petition against respondent Nos.7 to 15, namely Manzoor Ahmad, Abdur Rehman, Allah Wasaya, Muhammad Rafiq, Muhammad Shafi Bashir Ahmad, Gul Muhammad, Ghulam Farid and Allah Ditia.
2. So qua them this petition is dismissed.
3. ' Now we have to examine as to whether the petitioner has a case for leave to appeal against respondents 1 to 6 Ghulam Shabbir, Ghulam Rasool,Muhammad Sharif son of Kabul, Muhammad Sharif son of Allah Dawaya, Murid Hussain and Muhammad Jalal.
4. ' Leave is being sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 1-2-1987.
5. ' Abdul Aziz lodged report on 16-11-1982 at 5 p.m. With regard to the murder of his son Wazir and attempt to murder Rasool Baldish. The occurrence took place on the same day at 10/11 a.m. Within the area of Mauza Trinda Basharat, 9 k.m. From Police Station Uch Sharif.
6. ' Fifteen persons were hauled up. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur.
7. The trial Judge, by judgment, dated 29-1-86 convicted Sharif son of Kabul, Mureed Hussain, Sharif son of Allah Diwaya, Muhammad Jalal, Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Shabbir, under section 302/148/149/34, P.P.C.
8. ' Ghulam Farid and Allah Ditta were sentenced to death with fine of Rs,2,000 each or in default to undergo one year R.I. Each.
9. ' Sharif son of Kabul, Sharif son of Allah Diwaya Murid Hussain and Muhammad Jalal were sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs,2,000 each or in default one year R.I. Each.
10. ' They were also sentenced to two years R.I.Each under section 148, P.P.C.
11. ' Ghulam Shabbir, Ghulam Rasool and Sharif son of Kabul were further convicted under section 367, P.P.C. And sentenced to seven years R.I. With fine of Rs,1,000 each.
12. ' The convicts appealed to the Lahore High Court. Reference was also made for confirmation of death sentences of Ghulam Shabbir and Ghulam Rasool. Complainant filed revision against the acquitted accused.
13. ' A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, by , judgment, dated 1-2-1987, accepted the appeal. All of them were acquitted. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
14. Although this ground itself is sufficient to dismiss this petition that the learned counsel did not feel confident to press the petition viz-a-viz respondents Nos.7 to 15, nevertheless we permitted the learned counsel to address us with regard to the other respondents in order to be sure whether there is any error in the judgment of the High Court whereby any of the principles laid down by this Court in dealing with a judgment of acquittal has been violated or some material evidence has been ignored or inadmissible testimony has been taken into consideration.
15. ' As a matter of fact what the learned counsel wanted us to do was to reappraise the evidence. He challenged the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court. The submission has no force.
16. We find that the High Court after going through the entire evidence found that it did not inspire confidence because of material improvements and contradictions. The High Court applied the dictum laid down by this Court in the B case of Wali Muhammad v. Nawab and others (1984 SCMR 914). We don't think it is a fit case for leave to appeal.