UMER MIAN vs PHOOL SHAH And Another
This appeal by leave arose from a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of charges under sections 467 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, a complainant in a private criminal complaint, alleged that the respondent had forged a power of attorney and subsequently sold the complainant's land using fake impersonators. The trial court had convicted the respondent, but the High Court overturned this conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented at trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecution failed to examine marginal witnesses to the power of attorney, did not obtain a handwriting expert's opinion regarding the alleged forged signatures, and failed to produce any vendees to corroborate the transaction. The Court established the key principle that a criminal conviction cannot be sustained solely on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused, particularly when essential evidence regarding the alleged forgery remains unexamined by the prosecution.
- Can a criminal conviction be based solely on the statement of a co-accused?
- Is the failure to examine marginal witnesses or obtain expert handwriting analysis fatal to a prosecution case involving forgery?
- Does the appellate court have grounds to interfere with an acquittal when the prosecution fails to produce essential evidence?
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J: --This appeal by leave arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh dated 10-12-1983.
2. Phool Shah and Amanur Rehman, the acquitted accused, were charged under section 467/34, P.P.C. On a private complaint lodged by one Umer Mian. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant in conspiracy with Amanur Rehman, the acquitted accused, forged and got registered a power of attorney purported to have been executed by the complainant, his brother Yousaf Ali and Mst. Rahim Bai widow of his brother Akbar Ali. Under the power of attorney the respondent was inter alia authorised to sell the lands of the executants situate in two Dehs. According to the complainant, the respondent on the strength of the said power of attorney entered into a conspiracy with Muhammad Paryal, Muhammad Ibrahim, Shaffan, Abdul Hakeem, Khan Muhammad, Muhammad Paneh, Sher Muhammad and Mahiwal and sold to them the said land specified in the list attached with the complaint. This sale-deed was presented to the Sub--- Registrar Hyderabad on 2-10-1976 when the respondent and his co-accused produced fake persons personating for aforesaid executants.
3. After holding the preliminary enquiry the Court issued process against the respondent and Amanur Rehman, the acquitted co-accused. After the conclusion of trial Amanur Rehman was acquitted but the respondent was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge IInd Larkana under sections 467 and 471, P.P.C. And vide judgment dated 7-11-1982 sentenced the respondent to 5 years R.1. And a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default to 6 months' R.I. On both counts. The sentence of imprisonment on both counts was, however, ordered to run concurrently. The trial Court also ordered that the fine on realisation be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
4. The respondent filed appeal in the High Court against his conviction and sentence which was allowed as per the impugned judgment dated 10-12-1983.
5. Leave was granted to consider whether in the background of dispute an the evidence led at the trial the order by the High Court acquitting the respondent was proper.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the Courts. Below.
7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the order of acquittal passed in this case needs no interference. The perusal of the record in this case shows that none of the marginal witnesses was examined in this case for no effort was made by the complainant to summon and produce the marginal witnesses of the power of attorney. Further, neither the case was sent to the handwriting expert to obtain his opinion about the signatures of the executants on the power of attorney nor any of the vendees alleged to have entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent was produced to support the case of the appellant. The only person who has supported the case of the complainant in this case is the co-accused namely Amanur Rehman.
Obviously no conviction can be based on the statement of the co-accused in a criminal case.
8. In view of the above, this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed The bailable warrants are hereby recalled.