Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 544-A, 382-B, 265-C, 342, 340(2), 512

SUMMARY

Criminal appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Misreading and non-reading of evidence. Though an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, the same is not inviolable. Where acquittal is the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence, selective appreciation or misapplication of law, the appellate court is duty-bound to reappraise the evidence and set aside the acquittal to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Murder (s.302 PPC) — Ocular account — Solitary witness — Related witness. Conviction may safely be based on the testimony of a single witness, if natural, consistent and confidence-inspiring. Mere relationship of a witness with the deceased is not a valid ground to discard his testimony in the absence of proof of animus or motive for false implication.
Evidence — Appreciation — Minor discrepancies. Minor inconsistencies not going to the root of the case are to be ignored and the evidence is to be appreciated as a whole and not in isolated fragments. Medical evidence — Corroboration.
Medical evidence is corroborative in nature and where it supports the ocular account and does not rule out the prosecution version, it cannot override direct evidence.
Identification — Recognition — Darkness. Where the accused is well known to the witness and the case is one of recognition, plea of darkness or defective light is of no legal consequence.
Substitution — False defence — Motive. Substitution of an innocent person in place of a single, well- known accused is a rare phenomenon. A false or inconsistent defence may be considered as an additional circumstance lending support to the prosecution case. Where reliable ocular account duly corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence is available, failure to conclusively establish motive is not fatal.
Sentence — s.302 PPC. While determining sentence, aggravating and mitigating circumstances are to be balanced. Brutal use of a deadly firearm causing multiple injuries on vital parts is a strong aggravating circumstance; however, absence of previous conviction and possibility of reformation may justify award of life imprisonment instead of death penalty.
Held: Acquittal set aside as being the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Respondent convicted under sec. 302(b), PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with compensation under s.544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of s.382-B, Cr.P.C. allowed.
 

⚖️ LAWS & SECTIONS

• 302(b)
• 544-A
• 382-B
• 265-C
• 342
• 340(2)
• 512

---

🧾 2-WORD DESCRIPTION

“Acquittal Reversed”

 

JUDGMENT

At a trial held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bannu, the respondent/accused Zohaib s/o Madamir Jan, resident of Bheri Khel, Tehsil and District Bannu, was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 PPC vide judgment dated 06.11.2018 in Sessions Trial No. 173/SC of 2016-17 arising out of FIR No. 582 dated 18.09.2015, registered at Police Station Mandan, District Bannu.

1. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/complainant Nausher Khan challenged the acquittal through the instant appeal.
2. Brief facts are that on 18.09.2015 at about 10:00 p.m., the complainant brought the dead body of his son Mohib Niaz to Civil Hospital, Bannu, and reported that at about 9:00 p.m., the accused Zohaib Khan, armed with a Kalashnikov, knocked at their door and, upon opening, fired at the deceased, causing his death. Motive was prior altercation. FIR was lodged accordingly.
3. After investigation, challan was submitted. The accused was tried, evidence recorded, and he was acquitted by the trial court. Hence, this appeal.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. It is settled that although acquittal carries presumption of innocence, it can be reversed where there is misreading or non-reading of evidence or misapplication of law.
6. The trial court’s judgment reflects selective appreciation of evidence and undue emphasis on minor discrepancies, resulting in erroneous acquittal.
7. The homicidal death of the deceased stands fully proved through medical evidence (PW-6 Dr. Tariq Nawaz), showing multiple firearm injuries.
8. The identity of the accused is established through ocular testimony of PW-8 (complainant/father), whose presence at the spot is natural and whose statement remained consistent.
9. Minor discrepancies do not affect the core of the prosecution case. Testimony of a single reliable witness is sufficient for conviction.
10. Relationship of witness with deceased is not a ground to discard testimony in absence of motive for false implication.
11. Prosecution evidence is consistent and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.
12. No possibility of mistaken identity exists as parties were known to each other.
13. Medical and forensic evidence supports the ocular account.
14. Plea of darkness is irrelevant as it was a case of recognition, not identification.
15. Defence version is weak and inconsistent; accused’s conduct suggests guilt.
16. Motive, though not strongly proved, is not essential where direct evidence exists.
17. Trial court erred by dissecting evidence instead of evaluating it holistically.
18. Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
19. Charge under Section 302 PPC stands established.
20. Considering aggravating and mitigating factors, the case does not fall under death penalty; life imprisonment is appropriate.

---

ORDER

22. The appeal is allowed.
    The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.11.2018 is set aside.

The respondent Zohaib Khan is convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to: