THE STATE vs MAQSOOD AHMAD
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, challenging the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the State's appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, Maqsood Ahmad, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which acquitted the respondent based on medical evidence contradicting the ocular testimony, were perverse or illegal. The ocular evidence alleged that two shots were fired at the deceased, one by the respondent and one by a co-accused, yet medical evidence confirmed only a single injury on the abdomen. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal was justified, as the medical evidence regarding the single injury rendered the prosecution's version of two separate shots hitting the same location improbable. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of acquittal based on a reasonable assessment of evidence, particularly where medical evidence contradicts ocular testimony, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court unless proven perverse or illegal.
- Whether concurrent findings of acquittal by lower courts can be interfered with by the Supreme Court when based on a reasonable assessment of evidence?
- Does medical evidence showing a single injury invalidate ocular testimony claiming two separate shots were fired at the same location?
- Is the benefit of doubt properly extended when the prosecution's version of the occurrence is contradicted by medical findings?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The State, through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 25-5-1993, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Criminal Appeal No,660 of 1991 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Maqsood Ahmad son of Nazra, Nazra son of Chohar and Rajab All son of Manak were tried for the murder of Dara son of Wahab by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. Rajab Ali died during the trial and proceedings against him abated. The learned trial Judge on 16-12-1990, convicted Nazra accused under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and a fine.
Maqsood Ahmad respondent was, however, acquitted.
3. The State filed Criminal Appeal against the order of his acquittal which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 25-5-1993. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the State contended that ocular evidence, consisting upon the deposition of Manzoor Ahmad the complainant and Baqir P.W. Fully charged Maqsood Ahmad respondent having fired with his rifle at Dara which hit him on his abdomen. It was further contended that the finding of the courts below, that one injury on the abdomen of the deceased could not have been caused by two fire shots, One attributed to Nazra and the other to Maqsood Ahmad respondent, so as to extend benefit of doubt in his favour and acquit him was wrong.
5. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and find that the learned trial Judge in para 21 of the judgment mentioned that both eye-witnesses claimed that the fire from Nazra accused with his gun and fire from Maqsood Ahmad respondent with his rifle hit at the abdomen of the deceased, but the medical evidence showed one injury on the abdomen instead of two injuries. He extended benefit of doubt in favour of Maqsood Ahmad as no bullet empty was recovered from the place of occurrence and the weapon alleged to have been used by him was his licensed rifle.
Similarly the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court observed that the diamensions of the injury suffered by the deceased clearly show that the said injury could not have resulted from two shots hitting the same part of the body.
6. In our view the benefit of doubt extended in favour of Maqsood Ahmad respondent and verdict of his acquittal concurrently pronounced by the Courts below cannot be construed to be illegal or preverse so as to call for interference. In the result, we find no merit in this petition, it is accordingly dismissed and .