MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs THE STATE and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which accepted a criminal revision petition and acquitted respondents Nos. 2 and 3 of charges under section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, setting aside their convictions and sentences previously awarded by the Magistrate and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question involved the propriety of the High Court's re-appraisal of evidence in revision, particularly regarding the reliance on a solitary statement of an interested complainant with a background of enmity, and the discrediting of eye-witness testimony. The Supreme Court held that the findings recorded by the High Court were unexceptional and warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal order passed by the High Court in revision when the appreciation of evidence regarding the unreliability of eye-witnesses and the interested nature of the complainant's testimony is sound and free from legal defect.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment setting aside a conviction and acquitting the accused in revision?
- Is the conviction of an accused sustainable on the solitary statement of an interested complainant with a background of enmity when eye-witnesses have been disbelieved?
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 341, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 6-4-1987, whereby Criminal Revision No, 70 of 1985 filed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 against their convictions under section 323, P.P.C. And sentence to three months' R.I. For causing injuries to Muhammad Akhtar petitioner, awarded to them by Magistrate Section 30 Burewala and affirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Vehari on 28-3-1985, was accepted and they were acquitted by the impugned judgment.
2. The learned High Court in this case has observed that the Addl. Sessions Judge failed to consider the significant fact that the learned Magistrate Section 30 disbelieved the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses and the case against the co-accused of the respondents No,2-3 was found doubtful and also Muhammad Akhtar complainant who had a background of enmity with the respondents and their father and while agreeing with the Magistrate, the Addl. Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under sections 341 and 506 and the conviction on the solitary statement of Muhammad Akhtar petitioner was held to be not free from reasonable doubt. The High Court while accepting the revision petition set aside the conviction of the respondents Nos.2-3 and acquitted them from the charges.
3. ' Under the circumstances and facts of the case we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment is unexceptional and needs no interference by this Court. The petition is therefore, dismissed.