THE STATE vs BASHARAT alias SHADA
The State sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which had acquitted the respondent, Basharat alias Shada, of charges under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The trial court had initially convicted the respondent, but the Federal Shariat Court set aside this conviction, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable, incoherent, and suffering from material infirmities. The appellate court noted that the respondent’s defense—that he was falsely implicated following a prior altercation with an Assistant Sub-Inspector—was credible and supported by the testimony of an independent defense witness, a Lumberdar, who contradicted the prosecution's version of the arrest location. The Supreme Court reviewed the prosecution evidence and the findings of the Federal Shariat Court. Finding that the appellate court's conclusions were soundly based on the evidence and that there was no misreading or non-reading of material facts, the Supreme Court held that no grounds existed to interfere with the acquittal. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the respondent.
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment by the Federal Shariat Court?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence is found to be incoherent and suffering from material infirmities?
- Can the testimony of an independent defense witness be relied upon to support a plea of false implication by the police?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---Petitioner/State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20-12-1994 of the Federal Shariat Court whereby conviction and sentences awarded to Basharat respondent under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 vide judgment dated 14-9-1994 by the trial Court were set aside and the respondent was acquitted.
2. The acquittal was recorded after recording the conclusion that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is not confidence inspiring, these witnesses are neither coherent nor their version plausible; and that the evidence suffers ' from material infirmities. It was further observed as under:-- "It transpires from the statement of appellant/accused that a quarrel had taken place between Masood Khan, A.S.I., Police Station, Sadar, Okara and himself on 15-2-1992 which had ultimately led to scuffle between them and the said Masood Khan, A.S.I. Had tried to fire at him with his pistol but that was snatched by the appellant from him. He has given reason of the said quarrel and has stated that it was due to the same occurrence that on the next day he was arrested from his Dera and taken to Police Station where he was implicated in this case by planting fake recovery of 1500 grams heroin which had been recovered from one Gulzar. This statement finds support from the statement of Muhammad Arshad Javed, Lumberdar who has made a statement on oath as D.W.1.
This D W. Has admitted that he had given application to the police and resultantly an inquiry was conducted. He has contradicted the prosecution version that the appellant was apprehended from Chak No,4/4-L. This D.W. Is Lumberdar of the area and is independent witness and is not related to the appellant/accused."
' Learned Judge further observed that the defence plea also finds support from the version contained in the written application submitted to D.S.P. During investigation, who appeared to support the police/prosecution version as to the place of recovery of contraband.
3. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General who has also taken us through the prosecution evidence. The conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge of the Federal Shariat Court are based on evidence. Neither any misreading nor non-reading of material piece of evidence could be pointed out. No case is, thus, made out for setting aside the judgment of acquittal.
4. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.