GHULAM AHMAD vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, Ghulam Ahmad, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Special Court, Gujranwala, for the kidnapping of a minor child for ransom. The appellant challenged the conviction, alleging that the trial court's judgment was based on a misreading or non-reading of the evidence presented during the trial. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the appellate court could undertake an extensive reappraisal of evidence to determine if the lower courts' findings were based on misreading or non-reading of the record. The High Court held that the trial court and the first appellate court had duly considered the statements of all witnesses and the evidence on record before delivering their judgments. Consequently, the Court determined that there was no justification to declare the impugned judgments illegal or without lawful authority. The Court affirmed that in such proceedings, it is not permissible to conduct an extensive reappraisal of evidence to challenge the findings of lower courts, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Can the High Court undertake an extensive reappraisal of evidence to determine if a lower court's judgment resulted from misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is a conviction under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable if the trial court has duly considered the evidence on record?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 151/J of 1999 filed by Ghulam Ahmad, appellant through jail who was convicted under section 365-A, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. By Judge Special Court, Gujranwala vide judgment dated 20-2-1999.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 28-9-1998 in the evening, Faiza aged 6/7 years daughter of the complainant went out of the house to play but did not return. Search was made and through special source, it was learnt that the mirror was kidnapped by Ghulam Ahmad for ransom. The complainant indicate that both the Courts below had taken into consideration the evidence of the parties which had been recorded during the trial. There is no force in the argument that the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below were result of non-reading or misreading of the evidence. Even otherwise, while exercising the writ jurisdiction, it is not possible to undertake an extensive appraisal of the evidence produced by the parties so as to find out that the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of any non-reading or misreading of evidence.
Evidently, the learned trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court had taken into consideration the statements of the witnesses of the petitioner as well as of respondent No.3 and had delivered the judgments after attending to the evidence existing on record. Consequently there is no justification to declare that the impugned judgments and decrees dated 24-2-1999 and 18-1-2000 passed by the learned Courts below are illegal or without lawful authority.
5. The writ petition is clearly without any lawful basis and same is accordingly dismissed.