AZMAT KHAN vs AHMED VAR and 26 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the acquittal of respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner had initiated a criminal case under Section 324/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging a murderous assault by the respondents. The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding that prosecution witnesses failed to nominate or identify the accused, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent revision petition, noting contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, specifically noting the implausibility that a tractor struck by bullets left the driver unhurt, and the absence of injuries to the alleged victims despite claims of indiscriminate firing. The Court held that the acquittal was justified as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. It reaffirmed the principle that appellate interference with an acquittal order is reserved for exceptional cases to prevent grave miscarriage of justice, finding no such grounds in this instance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- Under what circumstances is it appropriate for an appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal?
- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to identify or nominate the accused justify an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court dismiss a criminal case where the prosecution's evidence regarding the occurrence of the crime is inherently improbable?
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 27-10-1997, passed by the High Court of Balochistan, dismissing the revision petition filed by Azmat Khan petitioner challenging the acquittal of the respondents under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalat Division at Mastung.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Azmat Khan petitioner got a case registered under section 324/149, P.P.C., on 27-9-1996, against the respondents and several other persons for making a murderous assault on Noorullah and Dost Muhammad with fire-arms. According to him, he had deputed Noorullah and Dost Muhammad to plough his land with a tractor, where the respondents accompanied by their co-accused launched a murderous attack on them but they escaped unhurt. On completion of the investigation 27 persons were sent up for trial. After the evidence of material witnesses had been recorded, the respondents moved an application under section 265- K, Cr.P.C. Before the trial Court which was accepted and they were acquitted vide judgment dated 30-8-1997. The operative part of the judgment is as under:- "All the prosecution witnesses examined before this Court are neither nominated all the accused nor identified them in their statements. The main prosecution witness is the complainant Mir Azmat Khan, who in his statement deposed that according to Noorullah 3 pick-ups came there and opened fire on them. Whereas the eye-witnesses Dost Muhammad, Noorullah, Noor Muhammad and Ghafoor Ahmed are also neither nominated nor identified all the accused.
' In such circumstances when prosecution failed to prove the allegation against the accused and eye-witnesses could not nominate all the accused in the commission of offence, therefore, for the foregoing reasons the application of accused under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Is accepted and the accused are acquitted."
3. Feeling aggrieved, Azmat Khan filed a revision petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 27-10-1997. The learned Division Bench observed that there was an exaggeration on the part of the complainant, and the evidence of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution was contradictory. They were, thus, of the opinion that there was no chance of recording conviction against the respondents and as such they did not consider it appropriate to interfere with the order of the learned trial Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has failed to satisfy us about the exaggeration and contradictions made by the eye-witnesses. It is hardly believable that the tractor which was being driven by Dost Muhammad received bullet marks' but Dost Muhammad, who was driving it, escaped totally unhurt. If such a large number of persons had resorted to firing indiscriminately at the eye-witnesses they were sure to have received injuries at their hands but they did not suffer even a scratch. No firearm was recovered from any of the respondents. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that there was absolutely no chance of the conviction of the respondents and the learned High Court had justifiably declined to interfere with the acquittal order. It is a well-settled proposition of law that an acquittal order is interfered with only in exceptional cases to avoid grave miscarriage of justice. Applying the above principle we do not consider, that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court was artificial or ridiculous. Hence, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any substance.
Leave to .