MUHAMMAD ALI vs MUKHTAR and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of murder charges. The respondents had been convicted by the trial court, but the High Court subsequently set aside the conviction and acquitted them. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence, specifically by failing to consider the testimony of a defense witness, Mst. Hanifan Bibi, who allegedly implicated the accused, and whether the ocular account of the prosecution was properly evaluated. The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the High Court had improperly ignored the testimony of the defense witness by summarily dismissing it as irrelevant to the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the ocular evidence and the specific testimony of the witness in question. The key principle established is that a High Court must engage with and properly evaluate all material evidence, including defense testimony, rather than dismissing it without consideration when determining the validity of a conviction.
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal if the High Court failed to consider material evidence?
- Is it legally permissible for a High Court to dismiss the testimony of a defense witness without evaluating its relevance to the case?
- Does the failure of the High Court to refer to specific ocular evidence in its judgment constitute a ground for granting leave to appeal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--The three respondents in this petition were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, for the murder of Mehr Din and for causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses. The trial Judge, by judgment dated 23-11-1981, convicted Mukhtar respondent under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with fine of Rs,5,000 or in default two years R.I. Two third of the fine was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Tufail and Mushtaq respondents were acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt.
2. ' Mukhtar filed appeal against his conviciton and sentence. Reference was also made to the High Court for confirmation of his death sentence. Complainant Mohammad Ali filed revision against the acquittal of Tufail and Mushtaq. All these matters were decided by the High Court by judgment dated 11-3-1986 whereby the Criminal Revision filed by the complainant was dismissed in limine; appeal of Mukhtar was accepted, his conviction and sentence was set aside and he was acquitted.
3. ' Muhammad Ali has now filed this petition for leave to appeal against all the accused those who had been acquitted by the trial Court as well as by the High Court.
4. ' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who submitted that the High Court did not at all refer to the evidence of Mst. Hanifan Bibi wife of Muhammad Ali complainant who appeared in defence and fully implicated the accused.
5. ' It was submitted that even the ocular account proved the case of the prosecution beyond doubt.
6. We think that there is good deal of force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Leave is granted accordingly to examine the ocular evidence with special reference to the testimony of Mst. Hanifan Bibi because we find that the learned High Court by means of the impugned judgment ignored the defence version observing:- "In defence the accused produced D.W.1 Peer Muhammad, D.W. 2 Saeed Ahmad, Registrar, District Registration Office, Gujranwala, D.W.3 Mst. Hanifan Bibi and D.W.4 Muhammad Dawood, Sub- Inspector, Finger Print Bureau, Lahore. The testimonies of these DWs have nothing to do with the circumstances of the under consideration case"
8. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. Non-bailable warrants of arrest to issue against the respondents.
9. ' Learned counsel for the respondents made a verbal request for bail. This we are not inclined to consider. He may, if he so wishes, make a proper bail petition at the appropriate time after arrest.