SARDAR KHAN vs Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the acquittal of the respondents. The core legal question concerns whether the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the courts below warranted interference by the Supreme Court on grounds of alleged misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that both lower courts properly appraised the evidence on record, found no misreading of the record, and declined to order a retrial nearly nine years after the alleged occurrence. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on a proper appraisal of evidence where no misreading of the record is established.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on an appraisal of evidence?
- Does a misreading of the record justify setting aside an acquittal and ordering a retrial?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained against the dismissal of a special leave petition by the High Court in a criminal matter?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18 March, 1987 whereby petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' The background is that the petitioner got a case registered under section 324/452, P.P.C. Against the respondents on 15 March 1980, but the police in the course of investigation found the version in the F.I.R. As incorrect and cancelled the case. Thereafter proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Were taken against the petitioner and these resulted in his acquittal in 1983. Then the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents under the aforesaid sections i.e, 324/452, P.P.C. Before the Magistrate. The respondents were summoned and after the trial the Magistrate acquitted them vide his order, dated 27 October, 1986. This order was challenged by way of a petition for special leave to appeal in the High Court by the petitioner which as stated above was dismissed. Hence the present petition before us.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that there has been misreading of the record; that the trial Court wrongly arrived at the conclusion that P.Ws. Nos.5 and 7 were hostile towards the respondents; and finally that after their acquittal the respondents had filed a suit for damages as against him which was still pending. On the basis of this reasoning learned counsel prays that we should order retrial of the respondents under the aforesaid sections almost after nine years from the date of the alleged occurrence.
4. We have gone through the impugned orders as well as statements of the witnesses. The High Court has attended to the arguments being raised before us elaborately in para. 2 of the impugned order. Both the Courts have properly appraised the evidence on record for arriving at the conclusion which is being challenged before us. There appears to be no misreading of record in this case and consequently no case is made out for interference. The petition is therefore dismissed.