MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs AFSARUDDIN and others
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents were initially convicted by a Magistrate for their involvement in a quarrel over the possession of a property, where the complainant party attempted to forcibly dispossess the respondents. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and its subsequent acquittal of the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings, which established that the complainant party were trespassers and the respondents acted within their rights to defend their possession, were supported by the evidence on record. The Court affirmed that it does not normally undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in such petitions absent clear misreading or illegality. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the principle that a person in possession of property is entitled to defend it against forcible dispossession, provided the force used does not exceed legal limits.
- Does the Supreme Court normally undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- Is a person in possession of property entitled to use force to prevent forcible dispossession by a trespasser?
- Can a conviction be maintained when the evidence establishes that the complainant party were the initial aggressors and trespassers?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---The complainant seeks leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Lahore High Court dated 30-5-1988.
2. The respondents were found guilty under section 307/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment each with fine of Rs,2,000 in default, for one year rigorous imprisonment, by a learned Magistrate Section 30, Lahore vide order dated 14-7-1982. On their appeal, the conviction was maintained but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to three years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 29-11-1982.
' They filed a revision petition. The learned Judge of the High Court, now its Chief Justice, concluded: "Admittedly, Afsaruddin petitioner was in possession of the Ihata in question and was running a workshop there. In the Kalandara (Ex.DG) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been stated that Abdul Latif sold the premises in question to Muhammad Nawaz etc. For Rs,80,000 and they wanted to get the possession of the same from Afsaruddin etc. Who were occupying it as tenants. On 4-1-1977 they went to the said premises for taking possession resulting in a quarrel between the parties in which both the sides suffered injuries. Evidence on the record clearly shows that Afsaruddin petitioner was in undisputed possession of the premises in question.
The complainant party had no right to enter upon the said property but they did enter upon it for taking forcible possession of the same. Muhammad Nawaz P.W. Stated that after he had fallen down the accused persons dragged him to the Ihata but this does not appear to be the correct position as he had no dragging marks on his person. It is fully established that he had trespassed into the Ihata. The accused were, therefore, within their right to cause him any harm other than death. He suffered only three injuries, all simple in nature." The revision petition was, therefore, allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence and the respondents were acquitted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned High Court was in error to have set aside the conviction. He has, however, not been able to show as to how the findings recorded by the learned High Court do not flow from the evidence on the record nor has he pointed out any misreading or illegality in the impugned order. His emphasis is for re-appraisal of evidence so as to reverse the findings. Neither it is done by this Court normally nor there is any justifiable reason to reverse the findings recorded by the learned High Court.
4. In view of the above, there is no force in this petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.