AMIR ZAMAN vs MUHAMMAD YAQ00B and others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had initially convicted the respondents and sentenced them to death. The High Court overturned these convictions, citing the interested nature of the eye-witnesses and the existence of prior civil and criminal litigation between the parties. The Supreme Court reviewed the petition and affirmed the acquittal of four respondents, finding the High Court's reasoning regarding them justified. However, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically against one respondent, Abdul, determining that the ocular evidence against him was supported by independent corroborative evidence, necessitating further judicial examination. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition regarding the other respondents while ordering the issuance of non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the respondent against whom leave to appeal was granted, rejecting a verbal request for bail at that stage.
- Does the existence of prior litigation between parties and the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased justify an acquittal?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against one respondent while being dismissed against others in the same criminal case?
- Is a verbal request for bail entertainable at the stage of granting leave to appeal before the accused is arrested?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--The respondents were convicted by the trial Court under section 302/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to death with fine of Rs,10,000 each as well as compensation amounting to Rs,10,000 each. They were also held guilty under section 148, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years, R.I.
2. Each.
3. ' On appeal the High Court acquitted all of them. Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case against the respondents had been proved beyond doubt. The High Court, therefore, erred in law in letting them off. The judgment as such is not legally maintainable.
5. ' We don't agree with this because the High Court after discussing the entire evidence found that the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased; the parties were litigating both on civil as well as criminal side. It was for the foregoing reasons that the appeal was allowed.
6. ' However, we think that so far as the acquittal of Muhammad Yaqub, Iftikhar, Muhammad Hanif and Ghulam Ali is concerned that was justified in law. The petition qua them is dismissed.
7. We are inclined to grant leave to appeal against Abdul respondent because against him not only that there is ocular evidence but the same finds corroboration from other unimpeachable independent evidence, so his case needs examination.
8. ' Non-bailable warrants of arrest to issue against Abdul respondent.
9. Learned counsel verbally requested for his bail. This request is turned down. Learned counsel if he so wishes may apply for the bail at proper time after arrest.