THE STATE Versus WALAYAT
This criminal appeal was filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent, Walayat, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondent murdered the deceased, Razaq, at Sabzi Mandi, Lahore, following an exchange of abuses. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading of evidence or if the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon re-appraisal of the evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution witnesses, who were residents of a different district, failed to establish their presence at the scene of the occurrence. Furthermore, the court noted material discrepancies in the ocular testimony and found that the recovery of the weapon of offence was not proven. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the acquittal was based on sound reasoning and that no misreading of evidence occurred. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish guilt through consistent and credible evidence.
- Whether an appellate court should interfere with an acquittal judgment if the trial court's reasoning is based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to establish their presence at the scene of occurrence undermine the prosecution's case?
- Is the recovery of the weapon of offence essential for proving a murder charge when ocular evidence is found to be unreliable?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.--- Walayat son of Sain, respondent was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in case F.I.R. No,295, dated 2-6-1998 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Ravi Road, Lahore, on the statement of Muhammad Ashfaq P.W.2 for commission of murder of his brother Razaq and was acquitted from the charge through impugned judgment, dated 1-7-1991 which was assailed by the State through the instant appeal.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case were that the complainant and his brother Razaq (deceased) used to work in Sabzi Mandi, Lahore and on the day of occurrence at 10-30 a.m. They were busy at the Plateform in front of Shop No,40 when Walayat respondent/ accused arrived there and had exchange of abuses with deceased on which Walayat accused pulled out a Chhuri and attacked Razaq deceased hitting on him different parts of body. The occurrence was also witnessed by Muhammad Asghar P.W.3. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence alongwith weapon of offence. Razaq was taken to Mayo Hospital in injured condition but he succumbed to the injuries.
3. The statement of Mushtaq (Exh.P.3) was recorded by Bashir Ahmad, S.-I. P.W.8 and he undertook the investigation. The postmortem examination was got conducted through Dr.. Farooq Mustafa Alvi P.W.6. He arrested the accused, effected the recovery of weapon of offence, recorded statements of the prosecution witnesses and submitted the challan.
4. The charge was framed against the accused who denied the same and the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses to prove guilt of the accused. The statement of the accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. Was also recorded who had denied the charge and claimed his innocence and false involvement. The trial culminated into acquittal of the accused as mentioned above, hence this appeal.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has argued that it was a daylight occurrence. The prosecution witnesses were natural and had no previous enmity to falsely implicate the accused.
The ocular account was corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offence and the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
6. We have given due consideration to the contention raised by learned Law Officer and have also perused the record. From the accused side nobody is in attendance despite name of the learned counsel has been duly reflected in the cause list. Therefore, we have proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.
7. Muhammad Ashfaq P.W.2 and Muhammad Asghar P.W.3 claimed to be eye-witness of the occurrence, but they were residents of District Gujrat. They have failed to show their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The reasons given by the trial Court to disbelieve their statements in para.32 of the judgment are borne out from the record. The material discrepancy in their statements has also been noticed by the trial Court. The complainant who is real brother of the deceased could not prove the fact that Razaq was taken to hospital by him in injured condition.
The recovery of weapon of offence was also not proved by the prosecution.
8. After deep re-appraisal of the evidence we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court' to acquit the accused and do not find any misreading of evidence or illegality or infirmity of the reasons in the impugned judgment to be interfered with. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed having no force.