SHABBAR HAYAT vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Shabbar Hayat against his conviction under sections 307/34 and 353/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as upheld by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner was initially convicted by the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials for an armed attack on a Sub-Engineer of the Irrigation Department. While the High Court acquitted the petitioner's co-accused, it maintained the petitioner's conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner initially raised a plea of insanity based on epilepsy, which was subsequently abandoned. The petitioner further challenged the sufficiency and independence of the prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had thoroughly examined the evidence and found the petitioner guilty. The Court affirmed that it would not undertake a re-appraisal of evidence at the leave-to-appeal stage unless the petitioner could demonstrate a specific error of law or a misreading of evidence by the lower courts. Finding no such error, the petition was dismissed.
- Whether the Supreme Court will undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in a petition for leave to appeal where the lower courts have already examined the evidence?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding of guilt by lower courts in a criminal matter?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--On the report of Muhammad Nawaz, Sub-Engineer Irrigation Department, a case under section 307/353/34, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Sillanwali District Sargodha, against Shabbar Hayat, Shaukat Hayat and Muhammad Amir pertaining to an incident which took place on 5-11-1986 at 10.15 a.m. In the area of Chak No,137-NB, Sobhaga, two miles from the Police Station, Sillanwali. The first informant received five shots in the right leg. He miraculously survived.
2. ' The motive for the attack was that Muhammad Nawaz was alleged to have made complaints against the accused pertaining to illegal irrigation of their land. He was threatened by the accused and was told that he would be killed.
3. ' On the day of occurrence Muhammad Nawaz was travelling in a public wagon on his way to Shah Jiwana. It was 10.15 a.m. The wagon reached near Sobhaga, Shabbar Hayat, Shaukat Hayat and another person approached him. He was asked to get down from the wagon. Shabbar Hayat fired.
4. He told Muhammad Nawaz that in case he reported the matter to the police he would be done to death. Shaukat Hayat and Shabbar Hayat were carrying double barrel guns; their companion had a rifle.
5. ' A Sub-Engineer by the name of Amar Sohail, Gaman of Chak No,151, Muhammad Khan son of Mehr Khan saw the occurrence.
6. ' The accused were tried by the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials, Sargodha. All were convicted and sentenced as under:- {{TABLE}} ' Shabbar Hayat ' Shaukat Hayat Muhammad Ameer ' under section 307/34, P.P.C. 14 years' R.I. Each with fine of Rs,50,000 or in default two years'R.I. Each. Under section 353/34, P.P.C., two years' R.I. And fine of Rs,10,000 or in default six months' R.I. Each.
7. ' Out of the fine three-fourth was ordered to be paid to the injured as compensation.
8. ' The sentences were to run concurrently. {{TABLE}} ' On appeal, the High Court acquitted Shaukat Hayat and Muhammad Ameer. Shabbar Hayat's conviction and sentence was upheld; the whole amount of fine was ordered to be paid to the injured. He was further directed to pay Rs,20,000 as compensation to the injured under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
9. ' Shabbar Hayat has now filed this petition for leave to appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of the Lahore High Court.
10. ' At first, Raja Muhammad Anwar tried to avail of the plea of insanity and argued that the petitioner was suffering from epilepsy. Having realized that it would be very difficult to establish this plea he gave it up.
11. ' Thereafter he criticised the prosecution evidence and submitted that it was neither sufficient nor independent to warrant the conviction and sentence. This submission has no force. Two Courts below examined the evidence thoroughly and then found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him accordingly.
12. ' Re-appraisal of evidence is not to be done by us at this stage. The petitioner could only succeed in obtaining leave from this Court if the counsel would have pointed out any error of law or mistake whereby some evidence had either been misread or not read. This is not the position in the instant case.
13. ' Dismissed.