Mst. JAMILA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD LATIF and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the acquittal of the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the ocular account, the plea of alibi, and the motive. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found significant discrepancies: the ocular witnesses failed to explain how the deceased sustained blunt weapon injuries despite alleging the accused were armed with firearms, and none of the witnesses were injured despite alleged indiscriminate firing. Furthermore, the Court noted that the investigating agency had found the respondents' plea of alibi to be credible and recommended their discharge. The Court held that the lower courts had thoroughly scanned the evidence and correctly extended the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that where prosecution evidence is inconsistent and fails to establish the accused's involvement, acquittal is the appropriate outcome.
- Can an acquittal be overturned when the ocular account is inconsistent with the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries?
- Is the failure of prosecution witnesses to sustain injuries during alleged indiscriminate firing a valid ground for doubting the prosecution's version?
- Does the finding of an investigating officer regarding a plea of alibi carry weight in the judicial assessment of evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 30-7-2001 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No,646 of 2001 filed by the petitioner was dismissed maintaining the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 and 2 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, through his judgment dated 31-3-2001.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated are that the petitioner got lodged F.I.R. No,304 on 16-10-1998 at Police Station Sambarial, District Sialkot, under sections 302/34, P.P.C. Against respondents Nos.1 and 2 alongwith their absconded co-accused Muhammad Afzal. It was the case of the complainant that said accused persons having armed themselves with lethal weapons opened a murderous assault and caused injuries to his brother Naseer Ahmed which resulted into his death. The motive, according to the prosecution, was that in the year 1995 her brothers Ashfaq Ahmed and Maqsood were murdered by Afzal, absconded co-accused and others, and the cases were pending against them which were being pursued by Naseer Ahmed deceased.
3. ' After usual investigation, the challan against ,the respondents was submitted in the Court. The prosecution produced ten witnesses to establish its case. When the accused-respondents were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied their involvement in the offence and put up the plea of alibi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, vide his judgment dated 31-3-2001, after thrashing the entire evidencebrought on record, acquitted both the respondents by extending them the benefit of doubt.
4. ' The complainant filed aforesaid Criminal Appeal No,646 of 2001 which has been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through judgment dated 30-7-2001, impugned herein. Hence this petition for leave to appeal by the complainant.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court have failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record in its true perspective. We have considered the above contention and have gone through the documents appended with the petition with his assistance. We have noticed that the ocular account in this case has been stated by Mst. Jamila Bibi, the complainant (P.W.5) and Mst. Maqsood Bibi (P.W.6).The deceased sustained seven injuries on his person and injuries Nos.1 and 2 were with blunt weapon. None of the eye-witnesses either in the examination- in-chief or in the cross-examination stated that anyone of the accused named by them was using blunt weapon or used the wrong side of the weapon. It is also in evidence that all the accused who were having pistol, repeater gun and the rifle, fired indiscriminately. However, none of the eye- witnesses sustained any injury in spite of incessant firing. The recovery has rightly been discarded as neither crime empties of repeater gun and rifle were recovered nor the crime weapon itself. Only crime empties of .30 bore pistol were recovered which Muhammad Afzal co-accused was carrying, as such this recovery cannot be used against the respondents. It has also come on record through D.S.P. Who had appeared as a C.W. As well as Tahir Mehmood, Inspector, an Investigating Officer that the plea of alibi taken by the respondents was found favourable and theInvestigating Agency recommended for their discharge. It is also to beappreciated that the motive as alleged by the prosecution was towards Muhammad Afzal, absconded co-accused. These two respondents had neither any relationship or caste fellow of said Muhammad Afzal. Nothing has been brought on record to show they were parties to the earlier murders or they had a semblance of enmity against the deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court have thoroughly scanned the evidence and we do not see any reason to differ with their determinations.
6. Resultantly, for the foregoing discussion, the instant petition being without any merit is dismissed and .