MUHAMMAD ALI vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and 5 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition filed against the acquittal of the respondents for offences under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the courts below erred in acquitting the respondents and failing to determine the aggressor in what was argued to be a free fight, despite disbelieving the interested prosecution witnesses and finding no corroborative value in the recoveries. The Supreme Court held that once the prosecution evidence is disbelieved and the prosecution fails to establish who the aggressor was, the argument that the court must determine the aggressor in a free fight carries no force. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that no interference was warranted against concurrent findings of acquittal.
- Whether the court is bound to determine the aggressor in a free fight when the primary prosecution evidence has been disbelieved?
- Does an appellate or revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal when the evidence does not inspire confidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries when there are no matching reports from the forensic science laboratory?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 23 February, 1986 whereby revision petition of the petitioner against acquittal of the respondents was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that respondents 1 to 5 were tried for an offence under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. But the trial Court vide its judgment acquitted all of them. Subsequently the revision of the petitioner-complainant against their acquittal as stated above was dismissed by the High Court. The deceased in this case is Khair Din and one injured person namely Habib P.W.
3. The occurrence took place at 6-30 p.m. On 17 August, 1975 within the area of Tehsil Burewala. F.I.R.
4. Was lodged by the petitioner-complainant son of the deceased on the same day at 11 p.m. From the spot were recovered three crime empties and at the instance of three respondents namely Abdul Sattar, Shafique Ahmad and Muhammad Farooq were recovered revolver and guns but there were no reports of the forensic science laboratory about their matching. Therefore the recovery evidence is of no corroborative value. The eye-witnesses are two namely the present petitioner and Habib P.W. And both are sons of the deceased. The deceased had six fire-arm injuries on his person whereas Habib P.W. Had fourteen simple injuries caused with blunt weapon.
5. According to the F.I.R. Muhammad Mushtaq, Shafique Ahmad and Abdul Sattar respondents had also been injured in the course of the occurrence. The motive is that two years prior to the present occurrence, the present petitioner and one Bhag Din had injured one of the members of the accused party and a case pertaining to that occurrence was pending against the petitioner and his brother in the Court of the Magistrate Ist Class. It was held out that the accused party formed an unlawful assembly to avenge this beating as well as murder of their father. According to the prosecution version the petitioner had gone to take the turn of water for his field alongwith his brother but Muhammad Mushtaq respondent did not let the water reach their field. Gradually this led to an altercation and one after the other the members of the accused party assembled there armed. This led to a fight as three of the members of the accused party injured Habib P.W. On the hue and cry of the petitioner the deceased came there with a Khunda in his hand. He caused injuries to Shafique Ahmad, Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Mushtaq respondents. In the meantime the other members of the accused party who were armed with guns came there and they fired shots at the deceased who was hit and fell down on the ground. Thereafter the accused party left the spot. The deceased died on the spot. The trial Court acquitted the respondents for the reason that it was a free fight between the two parties and it could not be ascertained as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressed. It was therefore that the trial Judge acquitted all the respondents. On revision the findings of the High Court were that the two eye-witnesses were interested and inimical and that the two independent eye-witnesses were not examined during the trial. Consequently the prosecution failed to establish that the accused party was aggressor. The High Court also arrived at the conclusion that the evidence against the accused party did not inspire any confidence, and that there was no misreading of evidence by the Sessions Court neither there was any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court.
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that as free fight had been admitted by both the parties, the High Court should have arrived at a definite conclusion as to which of the two parties was aggressor and then it should have proceeded to convict and sentence them accordingly. But we agree with the High Court and the Sessions Court that this argument is without any force when the prosecution evidence had been disbelieved.
7. ' After perusal of the impugned judgment and the record in our view no case for interference is made out. As a result this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM YASIN alias BHAIDOO vs THE STATE 2006 YLR 1775