MOKHA vs ZAFAR and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-6-2001, whereby the respondent's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under sections 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 recorded by the trial court were set aside and he was acquitted. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's reappraisal of ocular and circumstantial evidence leading to the acquittal in a criminal murder case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment of acquittal was in accordance with law and the principles for safe administration of criminal justice, noting critical flaws in the prosecution's case including untrustworthy eyewitness testimony, lack of forensic corroboration for the recovered weapon, delayed reporting, and material contradictions. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, affirming that no interference was warranted as the acquittal was neither perverse nor conscience-shocking.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment of acquittal when the evidence has been appraised in accordance with established principles for safe administration of criminal justice?
- Does the failure to send a recovered weapon to the Forensic Laboratory weaken the prosecution case?
- Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who are close relatives can be discarded when found untrustworthy and lacking corroboration?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment dated 28-6-2001 of the Lahore High Court through which conviction under sections 302/109, P.P.C. And sentence of life imprisonment of the respondent recorded and awarded by the trial Court was set aside and he has been acquitted of the charge.
2. The incident in this case took place on 7-11-1996 at about 3-00 p.m. The ocular account of the incident was given by P.W.5 and P.W.6 (aged about 14 years) brother and son of the deceased respectively.
3. Admittedly, no empty was recovered from the spot Whereas the carbine from which the same was shot, was recovered from the respondent but it was not sent to Forensic Laboratory. The evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 has been held by the High Court to be not trustworthy on the findings that these witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence. It is in the evidence that the dead body of the deceased was kept in the house of P.Ws. Whole of the night and it was taken to hospital on the next day. No blood-stained earth was taken from the spot. Even in the site plan, according to the findings of the High Court, no indication was given as to from where the respondent-accused person fired the shot. P.W.6 the son of the deceased denied having made any statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Whereas it was found to have been recorded. He denied the recording of the said statement by the police obviously for the reason to avoid legal consequence of any possibility of heir being contradictions.
4. The impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court is perfectly in accordance with law as the evidence has been appraised in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior Courts for safe administration of criminal justice. The same is neither. Perverse nor such that they do not appeal to the conscience as held by this Court, as such, no interference is called for.
5. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.