MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ABBAS ALI and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Muhammad Ramzan, against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted the appeals of the convicts, Liaqat Ali and Abbas Ali, thereby setting aside their convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and acquitting them. The trial court had previously convicted both individuals for murder and acquitted three co-accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. The petitioner argued that the ocular account provided by the prosecution witnesses was of unimpeachable character and was supported by medical evidence, making the High Court's acquittal whimsical and unsupported by the record. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a reappraisal of the prosecution evidence was necessary for the safe administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner.
- Whether a judgment of acquittal by the High Court can be interfered with if it is not based on cogent and valid reasons?
- Under what circumstances is a reappraisal of prosecution evidence warranted by the Supreme Court in a criminal appeal?
- Does the corroboration of ocular account by medical evidence justify the grant of leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 29th of January, 1990 at 9.30 a.m., a case under section 302/307/109/34, P.P.C. Was registered on the statement of Muhammad Ramzan against Liaqat Ali, Abbas Ali, Muhammad Akram, Dilawar, Niamat Ali and Manzoor Hussain (dead) for the murder of Muhammad Shafi and causing injuries to Nazar Hussain with Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad. An Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment, dated 20th of February, 1992 convicted Abbas Ali and Liaqat Ali under section 302/34, P.P.C. Liaqat Ali was sentenced to death plus fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to undergo R.I. For two years. Abbas Ali was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For two years. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was given to them. Vide the same judgment, the trial Judge acquitted Muhammad Akram, Dilawar and Niamat Ali by giving them the benefit of doubt. Liaqat Ali and Abbas Ali, the convicts filed separate appeals vide Criminal Appeals Nos.241 and 249 of 1992 respectively while the trial Judge sent Murder Reference No,173 of 1992 for confirmation of death sentence awarded to Liaqat Ali. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No,349 of 1992 challenging the acquittal of the respondents, Muhammad Akram, Dilawar and Niamat Ali. He sought enhancement of sentence of Abbas Ali from imprisonment for life to death. It was further prayed for grant of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. A learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide its judgment dated 30-10-1996 accepted the appeals. In the result, the conviction and sentences of the respondents were set aside and they were acquitted. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Ramzan against the impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel argues that Muhammad Ramzan P.W.8, and Muhammad Ali P.W.9 have proved the prosecution version beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence of unimpeachable character. There was, therefore, no justification for the High Court to acquit Liaqat Ali and Abbas Ali A on the grounds which, according to him, are whimsical and not supported by the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel has taken us through the prosecution evidence to show that the judgment of acquittal having been recorded by the High Court is not based on cogent and valid reasons. The medical evidence lends support to the ocular account.
3. In these circumstances, reappraisal of the prosecution evidence is called for Leave to appeal is therefore, granted to the petitioner for the safe administration of criminal justice.