MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent of a death sentence by setting aside his conviction. The petitioner challenged the High Court's findings, specifically arguing that the court erred in concluding that prosecution witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence merely because they failed to intervene during the incident. The Supreme Court examined the petitioner's contentions regarding the appreciation of evidence and the alleged conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence. The Court held that the appreciation of evidence falls exclusively within the domain of the High Court. Finding no instance of misreading or non-reading of evidence by the High Court, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the acquittal. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that the Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence in the absence of a demonstrated error such as misreading or non-reading of the record.
- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to intervene during a criminal occurrence automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Is the appreciation of evidence exclusively the domain of the High Court in criminal appeals?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal case?
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 21- 9-1987 whereby the death sentence awarded to the respondent was not confirmed; his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted. He accordingly seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment.
2. ' The High Court after discussing the relevant evidence with special reference to the ocular version observed that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence. It was further found that the ocular account was in conflict with the medical evidence.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High Court erred in law in holding that the prosecution witnesses had not seen the occurrence simply because they did not intervene at the time of occurrence.
4. This submission has no force unless the learned counsel could point out any misreading or non- reading of any evidence. This he has not been able to do and as far as the appreciation of evidence is concerned, that is exclusively the domain of the High Court. We are not going to reappraise the evidence. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Ghulam Rasool vs The State 2022 SCP 265, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 50, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 806
- Ghulam Rasool vs State PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 50