GULFAM and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an earlier acquittal of the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The petitioners had been acquitted by the trial court after receiving the benefit of the doubt in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon appeal, the High Court reversed this decision, convicting the petitioners under sections 302(c)/34, 324, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners challenged this reversal, arguing that the High Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the arguments, granted leave to appeal to conduct a thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice, emphasizing the necessity of reviewing the evidentiary basis for the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal to reappraise evidence in a criminal case where the High Court has reversed an acquittal?
- Is a comprehensive reappraisal of evidence required when the High Court sets aside a trial court's acquittal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 1-10-2002 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the learned Judges set aside the .Earlier determination dated 5-12-1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby petitioners were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt in a case emanated out of F.I.R. No,300 of 1993 registered on 22-11-1993 at Police Station Gulberg, Faisalabad, under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. They were convicted and sentenced under sections 302(c)/34, P.P.C. To undergo 10 years' R.I. And to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default to suffer six months' S.I. They were further convicted under section 324, P.P.C. For causing injuries to Ghulam Murtaza (P. W.10) and were sentenced to 7 years'
R.I. Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C., the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to 3 years' R.I. And to pay 'Daman' amounting to Rs,10,000 each to said Ghulam Murtaza. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Judges of the High Court have, without appreciating the evidence brought on record in its true perspective, set aside the determination of the learned trial Judge who after appraising the entire evidence acquitted the petitioners.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal to appraise the entire evidence for the safe administration of criminal justice. Order accordingly.