SULTAN AHMAD vs Mst. NASEEM BEGUM and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 302 and Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the murder of her husband. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence when setting aside the conviction. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's findings, which were based on the absence of sufficient motive, the non-production of a key witness who transported the deceased to the hospital, the delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the presence of burn injuries on the respondent herself. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly applied the principles of criminal justice by determining that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Finding no misreading of the record or misapplication of law, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the acquittal.
- Does the absence of a clear motive and the non-production of a material witness justify an acquittal in a murder case?
- Can a delayed First Information Report be a ground for doubting the prosecution's case?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with an acquittal judgment if the High Court has correctly applied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J. ---The petitioner, complainant in a case registered under section 302/436, P.P.C. Seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-11-1992 whereby the conviction of the respondent No,1 for murdering her husband by putting him on fire was set aside and sire was acquitted.
2. We find that the High Court's judgment gives good reasons for acquittal and these are: absence of sufficient motive on the part of the respondent to murder her husband; the non-production of Iftikhar who was instrumental in taking the injured/deceased Muhammad Sharif to the Hospital; the delayed F.I.R. And the burning on the foot of the respondent herself. The respondent had been married to the deceased fifteen years back. She had three children. It also appears that the father of the deceased had married twice, had a number of issues from both the wives and was being prevailed upon by his issues to deal with them fairly and proportionately in the matter of sale of land and distribution of its price. In this background of events and for the reasons recorded, the High Court adopted the correct yardstick for A administering the criminal justice and found the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. No misreading of the record or misapplication of the law is found to exist.
' Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.