RAHAB vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and 2 others
This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had acquitted two co-accused while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 302/34, P.P.C. The core legal questions involved the propriety of the acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence and the sustainability of the conviction of the remaining accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence, noting that the acquitted respondents were not named in the initial F.I.R. and no overt acts were established against them by the eyewitnesses or medical evidence, whereas ample and consistent evidence connected the convicted petitioners to the crime. The petitions were consequently dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of lower courts based on proper assessment of evidence without misreading or non-reading will not be interfered with.
- Whether the acquittal of accused persons can be interfered with when no overt acts are established against them by eyewitness or medical evidence?
- Is the conviction sustainable when eyewitnesses unanimously ascribe specific roles to the accused and their names are mentioned in the F.I.R.?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Above mentioned two petitions (Criminal Petition No,98-K of 1999 titled Rahab v. Muhammad Ismail and 2 others and Jail Petition No,233 of 1999 titled Hamid Ali and another v. The State arise out of the same occurrence and the same judgment, therefore, both these petitions will be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Facts in brief are that complainant Rahab reported murder of his son Mir Muhammad with Police Station Town, Larkana, against Hakim Ali, Qurban and 2 others. During investigation, Muhammad Ismail and one Ghullan were arrested. After usual investigation, the case came up for hearing before learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, who vide his judgment dated 24-9-1998 convicted all the accused to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs,25,000 each or in default six months' R.I. The convicts appealed. A learned Judge in Chambers of High Court of Sindh, vide his judgment dated 28-10-1999, extended benefit of doubt and acquitted Muhammad Ismail and Ghullan of all the charges. Hakim Ali and Qurban were, however, found guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. And their conviction and sentence was maintained. The complainant, in Criminal Petition No,98-K of 1999, has challenged the acquittal of Muhammad Ismail and Ghullan while convicts Hakim Ali and Qurban have filed Jail Petition bearing No,233 of 1999 challenging their conviction and sentences.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that overt acts were ascribed to Muhammad Ismail and Ghullan, therefore, they should not have been acquitted. He argued that there was ample evidence available on file but due weight was not given to it. Learned counsel for the State has controverted these contentions.
4. We have heard both sides at length and gone through the file minutely. Initially both the respondents i.e, Muhammad Ismail and Ghullan were not named in the F.I.R. Star witness Liaqat Ali, a resident of the locality, has also not ascribed any overt act to the acquitted accused. After having scanned the file, we have noticed that none of the eye-witnesses ascribed any overt act to the acquitted accused which could establish their involvement. As a matter of fact, the overt act ascribed by the eyewitnesses is belied by the medical evidence. We have noticed that the appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a just conclusion.
5. As far Jail Petition No,233 of 1999 is concerned, there is ample evidence which connects the petitioners with the occurrence. All the eyewitnesses unanimously ascribed specific role to each of them. Their names were mentioned in the F.I.R. Initially as well. Even the injured eyewitnesses have implicated them in the case. We feel that both the Courts below have rightly arrived at the conclusion that they were involved in the occurrence.
6. The upshot of above discussion is that we do not find any misreading or non-reading of evidence in the judgment impugned. The evidence produced in the case was properly and legally assessed by the Courts below. No ground for interference with the judgment impugned is, therefore, made out. Resultantly, both the petitions fail which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- Imtiaz Ahmad and another vs The State and others 2022 MLD 663, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 337, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 297
- QUDRAT SHER and another vs Mst. MUMTAZA and another 2016 YLR 787