HABIB AHMADPetit loner vs ABDULLAH and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case where the respondents were acquitted by the Lahore High Court of charges under sections 302/149, 148, and 323/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondents attacked the complainant party following a tractor collision, resulting in a death and injuries. Conversely, the respondents pleaded the right of private defence, asserting they were attacked while returning from a shrine. The High Court acquitted the respondents, finding that the complainant party suppressed material facts regarding previous enmity and failed to explain the injuries sustained by the respondents. The Supreme Court reviewed the petition, noting that the High Court had properly appraised the evidence, juxtaposed the two versions, and concluded that the respondents' plea of private defence was sufficiently established to create reasonable doubt. Finding that the High Court's view was reasonably supported by the evidence and involved no substantial question of law, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the acquittal.
- Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused provide grounds for acquittal?
- Can the right of private defence be established when the accused's version is supported by the prosecution's own evidence?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it merely challenges the High Court's appraisement of evidence without raising a question of law?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a complainant in a case registered against the seven respondents under sections 302/149, 148, 323/149, P.P.C. Seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 22-9-1985, whereby their plea of private defence of their person prevailed and giving them the benefit of doubt they were acquitted of the charges.
2. According to the prosecution case there was at 3-00 p.m. a collision of tractors of the complainant and of the respondents on 1-1-1982 which gave rise to exchange of abuses. At 4-30 p.m. The same day, the respondents appeared at the Dhari of the complainant, opened an attack causing injuries to Bashir who died at the spot, the petitioner (Habib) and to Chiragh P.W.7. Mst.
Saima Bibi, the mother of the deceased had also received injuries but she did not appear as a witness. The respondents pleaded that they were returning from the Ziarat and were on the path in front of the Dhari of the complainant when they were attacked and exercising their right of private defence of person some injuries were caused to the complainant side. Noor Muhammad respondent denied his presence or participation. The respondents were convicted by the trial Court but acquitted on appeal.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court considered in view of the antecedent facts, that the complainant party had the grievance at the time of the occurrence and not the respondents.
Besides, the complainant party had suppressed the material fact showing that they were inimical to the respondents and that was over the abduction of Mst. Nazirin. According to the. Learned Judge the occurrence for which the respondents were tried had taken place on a public path and their plea that they were returning from the shrine of Sheikh Fazal was also borne out. It was also found that the injuries of all the respondents were not explained by the prosecution. The learned Judge came to the following conclusion on these facts:- "I am of the view that it was the complainant party when they were returning home on a public path in their trolley from the shrine and that the accused acted in the right of their private defence.
The complainant side received nine injuries in all whereas the accused side received 11 injuries."
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we find that the questions raised in this petition concern the appraisement of the evidence. The learned Judge has considered the two versions of the case in juxtaposition as is required by law and found that the plea of the respondents was sufficiently well-established from the prosecution evidence itself and was sufficient to cause a reasonable doubt. As there was no effective weapon used during the occurrence the right of private defence was held to extend to causing the injuries which were in fact caused to the complainant. The view taken by the High Court could reasonably be taken on the evidence placed on record.
' No, question of law arises which may require our further examination. Hence leave to appeal is refused.