GUL BAHAR vs GHULAM NABI and 5 others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against an order of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed his appeal against the acquittal of the respondents on the grounds of being time-barred. The core legal question was whether the High Court's dismissal of the appeal due to delay was legally sound and whether the trial court's acquittal was justified on merits. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order suffered from no illegality or infirmity, noting that the petitioner failed to justify the delay in filing the appeal as required by law. Furthermore, upon reviewing the merits, the Court found the prosecution's case to be of a doubtful nature due to material improvements and exaggerations in the ocular account compared to the F.I.R., and upheld the trial court's reasoning regarding the rejection of evidence. The key principle laid down is that an appeal against acquittal must be filed within the statutory limitation period of thirty days, and appellate courts will not interfere with a trial court's acquittal when the prosecution's case is riddled with significant contradictions and improvements.
- What is the limitation period for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a court other than a High Court?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal when the prosecution's ocular account contains material improvements and exaggerations compared to the F.I.R.?
- Is an appeal against acquittal liable to be dismissed if the appellant fails to provide valid reasons for the delay in filing?
- Section 417(2-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---By this petition, petitioner Gul Bahar son of Wahid Bux seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 29-8-2000 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh whereby his appeal against acquittal of the respondents, was dismissed being time-barred.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very out set, could not satisfy about the reasons of delay in filing the appeal against acquittal although repeatedly asked. He simply emphasised that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution while acquitting the respondents.
3. On the face of it, the impugned order in our opinion does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Section 417 (2-A), Cr.P.C. Stipulates that an aggrieved person may file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by any Court, other than a High Court, within thirty days, which admittedly has not been done in this case.
4. On repeated insistence of the counsel for the petitioner we have gone through the record proceeding of the matter in detail and have considered the merits of the case also. According to the F.I.R. It was the respondent Ghulam Nabi only who caused the death of deceased Gul Hassasn, the brother of complainant within his sight as well as that of his brother Ghulam Rasool and Ali Nawaz whereas as per ocular account furnished by complainant Gul Bahar and above witnesses, respondents Ghulam Nabi, Ashiq, Nizam, Hadi Bux and Ghulam Hussain inflicted hatchet blows to deceased Gul Hassan in their, presence. This improvement and exaggeration at the trial make entire case of prosecution to be of doubtful nature and the trial Court had rightly disbelieved the same. Irrespective of this, the trial Court in its judgment has advanced proper reasonings for disbelieving the evidence on confessional statement and recoveries, thus not liable to be interfered with by this Court.
' Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF vs The STATE and another 2019 P Cr. L J 389
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs The STATE anothers 2014 YLR 2091
- HAJI MUHAMMAD and 7 others vs The STATE 2014 YLR 2061