AURANGZEB Alias RANGA vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial, whereby the appellant and his co-accused were convicted and sentenced under sections 365, 377, 395, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. While co-accused had their appeals accepted and were acquitted by the High Court in an earlier judgment, the appellant filed a belated appeal. The core legal question was whether the appellant, facing identical charges and evidence as the acquitted co-accused, was entitled to acquittal under the rule of consistency. The Lahore High Court held that the reasons for acquittal of the co-accused applied equally to the appellant. The court laid down the principle that under the rule of consistency, an appellant whose case is identical to that of acquitted co-accused must be treated at par and granted acquittal.
- Whether an appellant is entitled to acquittal on the basis of the rule of consistency when his co-accused facing identical charges and evidence have already been acquitted?
- Can a belated criminal appeal be entertained and the delay condoned by the High Court?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on specific grounds enure to the benefit of a non-appealing or belatedly appealing co-accused whose case is identical?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-This Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Judge Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial Court No.IX, Gujranwala, whereby he on 10-3-1988 convicted Aurangzeb, appellant and his co-accused namely Khadim Hussain, Abdul Jabbar, Masud Akhter and Anwar Hussain, under sections 365, 377, 395 and 397, P.P.C. And sentenced them as under:-- (i)under section 365, P.P.C. To five years' R.I. Each.
(ii)under section 377, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000 in default thereof two years' R.I.
(i.e) under section 395/397, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.25,000 in default thereof two and a half years' R.I.
It was directed that the fine imposed under section 395/397, P.P.C. If recovered shall be paid to Muhammad Nazir and Muhammad Sarwar P.Ws. And the fine imposed under section 377, P.P.C. If realised shall be paid to Muhammad Asjad P.W.8 as compensation.
2. Against this judgment of conviction, the convicts other than Aurangzeb, appellant, filed appeals in the High Court which were accepted vide single judgment dated 6th February, 1989, and co- convicts/co-accused were acquitted of the charge. After the acquittal of co-convicts, the appellant filed this belated appeal through jail on 13-12-1989. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned by this Court vide its order dated 5-11-1990.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case of the appellant is identical to the case of co-convicts namely Khadim Hussain, Anwar Hussain, Masud Akhtar and Abdul Jabbar who have been acquitted by this Court on 6th February, 1989 and that no petition for special leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of the acquittal of the co-accused/co-convicts. The learned counsel for the State has frankly and rightly conceded to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have examined the evidence on record. We find that the charge as well as the evidence against the appellant and the acquitted co-accused was/is the same. The appellate and acquitted co- accused were convicted and sentenced by one and the same Judge. The reasons given by the High Court for the acceptance of appeal against the conviction and sentence of the co-convicts equally apply to the case of the appellant. So, the rule of consistency requires that the petitioner should be treated at par with his co-convicts. We have examined the judgment of this Court passed in appeal against the conviction of the co-convicts reported in case Khadim Hussain and others v. State 1989 P Cr. L J 1785. We do not see any reason to disagree with the reasons given by the Divisional Bench of this Court for the acquittal of co-convicts.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in some other case.
Cited by 4 cases
- RAZA BASHIR vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 863
- MUHAMMAD JAN and anothers vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2282
- Syed MUHAMMAD HASHIM vs CIRCLE OFFICER, ANTICORRUPTION 2002 P Cr. L J 544
- BARKAT vs THE STATE 2000 YLR 2807