MUHAMMAD IRFAN vs ABDUL REHMAN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had declined to set aside the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court. The petitioner alleged that his brother was murdered by the respondents in the house of one of the respondents. The prosecution's case relied heavily on a single eye-witness, whose testimony was discarded by both the trial court and the High Court due to his delayed statement, lack of immediate reporting, and distant residence. Additionally, the trial court accepted the defence version that the deceased was killed while criminally assaulting a woman. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appraisal of evidence by the lower courts was conducted in its true perspective and that there was no basis for a re-appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether the testimony of a sole eye-witness who fails to report the occurrence immediately and remains silent for a month can be safely relied upon to sustain a conviction?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in an appeal against an acquittal?
- Does the acceptance of a plausible defence version by concurrent findings of lower courts preclude the interference of the Supreme Court in a criminal petition for leave to appeal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 19-6-1989 whereby it declined to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitting the respondents.
2. The facts, in brief, as narrated by the petitioner are that Muhammad Ibrahim his deceased brother used to run a cloth shop at Dhoke Mistrian, Tanch Bhatta, Rawalpindi. One Mst. Badaman Begum purchased cloth from his deceased brother valuing Rs.1500. Gul Zaman respondent stood guarantee for the payment. Muhammad Ibrahim deceased on 18-8-1987 taking the amount of Rs.15,000 (?) from the petitioner, accompanied Gul Zaman respondent to the house of Abdul Rehman respondent in Village Thalla Syedan. On 19-8-1987, Chan Pervaiz, nephew of the petitioner told him that his father was waiting for Ibrahim deceased in the village. The petitioner went to the house of Gul Zaman respondent but he could not find out the deceased there. Consequently, he went to the house of Abdul Rehman. He came to know that Muhammad Ibrahim was done to death in the house of Abdul Rehman respondent. The petitioner, went to police station to lodge the report but the police did not listen to him. The petitioner was informed by Ghulam Sarwar P.W. That he had witnessed that all the respondents had committed the murder of Muhammad Ibrahim deceased.
2. The First Information Report was lodged and also a private complaint against the respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the complainant had miserably failed to establish his case against the respondents. The evidence of Ghulam Sarwar, the only alleged witness was discarded. The defence version was accepted by the trial Court. The dead body was recovered from the house of the accused and the deceased was not wearing Shalwar and shoes.
3. The learned High Court observed that Ghulam Sarwar P.W. Was an untrustworthy and unbelievable witness. He was a resident of the place other than the place of occurrence. He kept quiet for a month and then appeared before the police. There is concurrent finding of fact by the two Courts.
4. The appraisal of evidence has been made in its true perspective. The statement of the only alleged eye-witness Ghulam Sarwar has been discarded for sound reasons. According to this witness, he had seen the incident but he did not make any report about this incident to anybody. He did not even inform the complainant about the alleged occurrence. He was residing at a distance of two miles from the place of incident. The defence version that the deceased had criminally assaulted Mst. Badaman Begum was accepted. This is not a case for re-appraisal of evidence. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.