ABDUL WAHAB vs TARIQ HASSAN and anothers
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the State appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on ocular evidence, medical testimony, recovery of the weapon, and motive. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence, noting significant discrepancies in the weapon recovery memo regarding the pistol's description and number, lack of support from ocular and medical evidence concerning the injuries, and doubts regarding the presence of certain police witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that acquittals supported by cogent reasons based on inherent infirmities in the prosecution case should not be interfered with.
- Whether an acquittal judgment by the High Court can be interfered with when the prosecution case suffers from inherent infirmities?
- What is the legal effect of a material discrepancy in the weapon recovery memo regarding the pistol's number in a criminal case?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against acquittal when the High Court has fully and cogently addressed all contentions raised by the prosecution?
ORDER
1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---State appeal against the order of acquittal was dismissed by the learned High Court by its judgment dated 27-4-1992 against which leave to appeal is prayed for.
2. ' It was contended by the learned counsel that the occurrence took place in a broad daylight and only one person was charged who was arrested by the police alongwith the weapon of offence, and the matter was promptly reported. That there was strong motive for commission of the offence and the medical evidence coupled with the opinion of the Arms Expert fully supported the prosecution case.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel and perusal of the record we are satisfied that the learned High Court has fully dealt with all these contentions now raised before us. There is no denial of the fact that the deceased who was a proclaimed offender was found present at the place of occurrence and the information of his presence was given to the police on Gasht duty. Such information could not have been given to the police by any other person than the one who knew him. It is also in the evidence that on getting the information the police party was trying to arrest the deceased who wanted to escape towards a Van where his other companions were waiting for him. The police, therefore, chased the deceased and they were joined by others who were present at the spot. It is also in. The evidence that there ensued cross firing. The prosecution case is that the respondent was apprehended at the spot with a pistol which was taken into possession through a recovery memo Exh.PC in presence of the marginal witnesses. That the pistol was of .30 bore Pak-made bearing No,4071944. However, according to recovery memo Exh.P4 the pistol sealed into a parcel and sent to the Arms Expert was .30 bore China-made bearing No,45071944. Discrepancy in the number of the pistol in the two memos is of considerable importance and has not been clarified by the prosecution at the trial. The Courts below, therefore, rightly discarded this piece of evidence.
4. The ocular evidence furnished by Khewa Din F.C., who also sustained injury in the occurrence, does not support the prosecution case in attributing his injury to the accused respondent. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. The presence of Muqadar Shah H.C. (P.W.3) and Islam Shah, A.S.I. (P.W.4) at the spot has been doubted by the learned High Court giving cogent reason for it. The judgment of the learned High Court, therefore, on account of these inherent infirmities in the prosecution case, is in consonance with the principle of administering criminal justice. No case has been made out for leave to appeal. This petition, therefore, is dismissed.