GAWA and 3 others vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order of acquittal passed by an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case for trial after finding that the trial court had acted prematurely in acquitting the accused due to the prosecution's failure to produce evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the trial court failed to consider the practical difficulties faced by the prosecution, specifically that the complainant was incarcerated as an undertrial prisoner at the time. The Court held that the High Court correctly determined there was no material on record to support the conclusion that witnesses were deliberately avoiding the court. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court's decision to remand the case for a proper trial was the only legal and appropriate course of action, refusing leave to appeal.
- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without sufficient evidence that witnesses were deliberately avoiding the court?
- Is a High Court justified in setting aside an acquittal and remanding a murder case if the trial court failed to consider the prosecution's practical difficulties in producing witnesses?
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.-- Gawa and three others are aggrieved by the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18-4-88 whereby the acquittal of the petitioners under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. By the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur in a murder case was set aside and the case was remanded to the Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, to hold the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for special leave to appeal made a futile attempt to support the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and submitted that there was no legal justification for remitting the case because the Additional Sessions Judge had taken all the necessary steps to secure presence of the witnesses and gave sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to produce evidence in support of its case. As the prosecution failed to do so the Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, acted in accordance with law, proceeding under section 265- K, Cr.P.C. We don't think the submission has any force because when the matter came before the High Court the learned Judge perused the entire record, summons, warrants and reports and then came to the conclusion, "...Unfortunately, there is no marterial justifying the findings arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It is further noteworthy to mention that the complainant was also in jail at the relevant time as under trial prisoner. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought to have seen the difficulties in the way of the prosecution to produce the evidence. Disposal of murder cases in such a slipshod manner is not warranted by law".
2. ' The learned Judge further observed that there was no material on record to hold that the witnesses deliberately avoided to appear in Court.
3. ' In the light of the above finding of the High Court, the only legal and proper course open was to remand the case.
4. ' We, therefore, don't think that the impugned judgment of the High Court calls for any interference.
5. Leave is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- CHAMBAIL GUL vs IMAM GUL and 5 others 1991 MLD 2198