SAEED AKHTAR and others vs MATLOOB and others
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against convictions and acquittals in a culpable homicide case involving multiple deaths and injuries. The Supreme Court addressed whether leave should be granted to challenge the acquittal of certain respondents and whether the sentences awarded to the convicted accused under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, required enhancement. The Court held that the arguments regarding contradictions in the impugned judgment were insufficient to set aside the acquittal of the respondents, and thus dismissed the petition against them. However, the Court granted leave to appeal regarding the convicted accused to examine the adequacy of the sentences imposed and the potential imposition of heavy fines or compensation. The Court explicitly rejected the prayer to convert the conviction to one under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle established is that while appellate courts are hesitant to interfere with acquittals based on minor contradictions, they retain the authority to review the adequacy of sentences and compensation in cases of culpable homicide.
- Is a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal maintainable based on alleged contradictions in the impugned judgment regarding the acts of the accused?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the limited purpose of examining the adequacy of a sentence and the imposition of compensation?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the enhancement of a sentence under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while simultaneously rejecting a request to convert the conviction to Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions -- one against conviction and the other (by the complainant) for enhancement in a case of culpable homicide involving three deaths as also injuries to a PW and serious injuries to two accused persons also who were acquitted by the trial Court.
2. ' The remaining accused have been convicted under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. And have been awarded 7 years' R.I.
3. ' After hearing both the learned counsel we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against the acquitted accused. The argument of the learned counsel based on the so-called contradictions in the impugned judgment, vis-a-vis, their acts is of no force when examining a plea for setting aside an acquittal. Criminal Petition No, 209 of 1986, therefore, is dismissed in so far as it is directed against the acquittal of Mobarik All and Mashooq Ali respondents therein. The same, however, is allowed in so far as the remaining convicts; namely, Matloob, Islamuddin, Sharafat Ali, Ashiq Ali and Shaukat Ali are concerned to the extent only that the question regarding the sentence awarded to them under section 304, Part I, P.P.C., needs examination. In that very context it would further need examination; whether, they should not be directed to pay adequate/heavy fine/compensation for the same offence; namely, 304, Part I, P.P.C. The prayer seeking their conviction under section 302 PPC is not tenable, therefore, leave is not being granted in this behalf in the said petition; namely, No,209 of 1986.
4. ' As leave to appeal has been granted against the petitioners in Cr.P. No,209 of 1986 for the enhancement of sentence/compensation, leave to appeal is granted to them also in Cr. P. No, 254 of 1986 regarding the pleas taken therein.
5. ' Both the appeals arising out of these petitions shall be heard together. The petitioners/convicts in Criminal Petition No, 254 of 1986 are stated to have been released after they had served out their sentence. Bailable warrants for their appearance in the sum of Rs,10,000 each with one surety each returnable to the District Magistrate concerned, shall he issued against them.