MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction based on the assessment of the credibility and natural presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the findings recorded by the High Court regarding the unnatural presence of the eye-witnesses and the doubtful recovery of the weapon were in accordance with the principles for the safe administration of criminal justice and did not suffer from any illegality. The Supreme Court laid down that an appellate court's acquittal based on sound reasoning regarding witness credibility and material contradictions will not be interfered with unless the grounds are fanciful or shocking to the conscience.
- Whether the acquittal of the accused can be upheld when the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene of the occurrence is held to be unnatural?
- Can the findings of the High Court regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses and recovery of weapons be interfered with if they are based on sound principles of criminal justice?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, 1.----This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 2- 11-1994 passed by the .Lahore High Court, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents/convicts against their conviction and sentence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Has been accepted and they have been acquitted of the charge.
2. The main reason which prevailed with the learned Division Bench of the High Court was that the presence on the spot of the two eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Mansha P.W.7 and Muhammad Abbas P.W.4 was not proved as they were not natural witnesses. Muhammad Abbas in his evidence has admitted that usually he did not accompany his father while bringing the milk from village but he was accompanying his father on the day of occurrence ,on his own request.
Muhammad Mansha who is the other eye-witness admitted that he closed his shop situated in Sheikhupura earlier than the routine closing hours because he wanted to go to his village in the company of Muhammad Sardar who was murdered some days after the occurrence. It is in the evidence of P.W.11 who is the Investigating Officer that there were other passages to approach the village which were shorter than the passage which Muhammad Mansha and other witnesses used on the day of occurrence. Neither the recovery of the weapon of offence in this case could be given any credit as the same set of witnesses were the recovery witnesses and the presence of eye- witnesses Muhammad Mansha and Muhammad Abbas was also not natural at the spot. It appears that the murder in fact took place somewhere else and the dead body of the deceased was thrown in the Nullah where it has been alleged that the occurrence took place.
3. After examining the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned Division Bench of the High Court are in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior Courts for safe administration of criminal justice and the same do not suffer from any illegality. The grounds which prevailed with the High Court are neither fanciful nor they are shocking to the conscience.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- SAJID and 2 others vs The STATE and 2 otherss 2014 YLR 288