SHER AHMAD vs BATI and 6 others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondents in a murder case. The core legal question involved the assessment and appreciation of evidence regarding the identification of the culprits during a dark night by star light, and the grounds required for interfering with an order of acquittal. The Supreme Court held that in petitions against acquittal, an appellate court will not set aside the acquittal merely on a difference of opinion regarding the assessment of evidence unless the lower court's judgment suffers from well-known infirmities such as the non-reading or misreading of evidence on substantial points. Since the lower courts' findings regarding identification and the lack of reliable corroboration did not suffer from such legal infirmities, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not lightly interfere with an acquittal based on a plausible evaluation of evidence, particularly regarding identification in adverse visibility conditions.
- Will an acquittal be set aside by the Supreme Court merely on a difference of opinion regarding the assessment of evidence?
- Can an eyewitness identification made during a dark night by star light sustain a conviction if accepted by the lower court?
- What infirmities must be shown in the appreciation of evidence to interfere with an order of acquittal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the complainant side in a murder case against acquittal.
2. ' Two accused were acquitted by the trial Court. The remaining out of 8 were acquitted by the High Court. Admittedly the occurrence was of dark night. The moon had not yet arisen at the relevant time. Learned counsel, however, vehemently argued that in the circumstances of this case, some witnesses, if not all, could have identified the culprits in the star light.
3. ' If in a case like the present one it is held by the lower Court that the witnesses were able to identify the culprits and the conviction is maintained, it would be a different situation in the Supreme Court.
4. The appreciation of evidence in that case by the lower Court/s might be accepted. This is, however, a petition against acquittal. The position is different. Even on a difference of opinion on the assessm ent of evidence, if it does not suffer from well-known infirmities like non-reading or misreading of evidence on substantial points, the acquittal would not be set aside. In our view, therefore, the first point raised by the learned counsel regarding possibility of genuine/correct identification by the eye-witnesses, in the context of this petition for leave to appeal against acquittal, has no force.
5. ' After the failure on the first point the learned counsel who had also raised the point regarding corroboration could not pursue the second point to its logical end. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, leave to appeal is refused.