Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1985/BWP, decided on 18th March1985.

-----S.439 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Acquittal‑‑Revision‑against‑‑Reappraisal of evidence‑‑Appraisal done in accordance with established principles‑‑Appraisal of evidence by 'Trial Court not open to exception‑‑Contention to reappraise evidence in revisional jurisdiction, held, could not be accepted merely because another view of evidence on record was possible.

Haji Riaz‑ud‑Din Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.

This revision petition has been directed to assail the order, dated 7th of June, 1984, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, whereby, the respondents were acquitted of the charge under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. Mehr Zaman respondent No. 2, is son of Muhammad Ramzan respondent No. 1, whereas, Abdul Rashid respondent No. 3, is son‑in‑law of Ghulam Nabi respondent No. 4. They were tried for the murder of one Liaqat All deceased.

2. The occurrence, in this case, allegedly took place in the night between 26/27^th of December, 1982. The F.I.R. Exh. P.G., was lodged by Asghar Ali (P.W.10), real brother of the deceased, at Police Station Faqirwali on 27th of December, 1982 at 10 a.m. The crime allegedly was committed in the house of Muhammad Ramzan respondent No. 1, but the dead body of the deceased was found in the cotton fields of one Abdur Rehman.

3. The motive was stated by the prosecution for the commission of the offence is, that two months prior to the occurrence, the deceased Liaqat Ali told Ghulam Nabi respondent No. 4, that Mst. Akhtar Bibi, his daughter and wife of Abdul Rashid respondent No. 3, was carrying on illicit connections with Mehr Zaman respondent No. 2. Ghulam Nabi respondent No. 4 was provoked and there was exchange of hot words between the deceased and Ghulam Nabi respondent No. 4. It was alleged that on account of the grudge borne by Ghulam Nabi respondent on account of the insinuation made by the deceased, all the respondents joined hands to murder the deceased.

4. There is no ocular evidence in this case, but the prosecution has relied upon the evidence as to the motive and the evidence as to the last seen coupled with the extra‑judicial confession made by the respondents before Akbar Ali (P.W. 12).

5. Muhammad Shafi (P.W. 9), a cousin of the father of the deceased, was produced to testify that he had heard all the accused saying that they had avenged, the insult. Muhammad Anwar (P.W. 7) was produced to depose that eight or ten days before the present occurrence, the accused had met him and had asked him to restrain the deceased from making false allegations.

6. All the respondents were arrested on 28th of December, 1982. On 3rd January, 1983, Muhammad Ramzan respondent No. 1 led to the recovery of rope P. 3, alleged to have been used to throttle the deceased, the same was taken into possession vide memo Exh. P.H. and was attested by Asghar Ali P.W. 4 and Muhammad Hussain P.W. 6,

7. The learned trial Judge having gone through the evidence, disbelieved the last seen evidence on the ground that it was improbable that the deceased would accompany the accused, in so far as, it was admitted, that the relations were strained between the deceased and the respondents and, therefore, the deceased could not have accompanied the respondents. The evidence as to the extra‑judicial confession was also disbelieved on the ground that the respondents had confessed the commission of crime on 28th of December 1982 before the aforesaid witness. The police recorded the statement of Akbar Ali P.W. 12 on 30th of December, 1982. It was therefore, concluded that the evidence as to the extra‑judicial confession cannot be relied upon.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the evidence had been wrongly disbelieved.

9. I am afraid, I cannot accept the contention so as to re‑appraise the evidence in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I have noted, that the appraisal of evidence, as done by the learned Sessions Judge, is not open to exception, and the exercise was done by the learned trial Judge in accordance with the established principles laid down by the superior Court governing the subject.

10. Merely because, another view is possible on the basis of the evidence on the record would hardly furnish a ground to interfere with the acquittal. I find no merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed.

S.A. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.