1981 P Cr (PLP)
THE STATE‑Appellant Versus MUHAMIVIAD ARIF AND 2 OTHERS‑ — Respondents
| Citation | 1981 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saeedur Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE‑Appellant Versus MUHAMIVIAD ARIF AND 2 OTHERS‑ — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saeedur Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 P Cr (PLP) (THE STATE‑Appellant Versus MUHAMIVIAD ARIF AND 2 OTHERS‑ — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 417‑Appeal against acquittal‑Appreciation of evidence-- Contention that though contradictions and even improvements in statements of eye‑witnesses existing yet of no consequences and ocular evidence cannot be discarded, held, had no force‑Apprecia tion of evidence and to draw inference from same exclusively vests with trial Court‑Such discretion to be exercised in a judicial manner ‑-- Conclusion arrived at not resulting into any error of law or fact or miscarriage of justice‑Impugned judgment not suffering from any such defect, hence, appeal against acquittal dismissed in circumstances of case.‑[Appeal against acquittal --Evidence]. ‑‑ S. 417‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Filing of appeal against acquittal as a matter of routine deprecated‑Principles governing such appeal stated. Fateh Muhammad v. Baggo and others P L D 1960 S C 286 and Shall Nawaz v. Lal Khan and 2 others 1972 S C M R 286 rel. S. M. Zubair, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, dated 12thDecember, 1979, whereby the three respondents charged for the murder of Nazir Ahmad, were acquitted.
2. Learned Assistant Advocate General appearing in support of this appeal conceded that there were some contradictions and even improvements in the statements of the two eye‑witnesses, but according to him these were of no consequence hence the ocular evidence could not discarded. We do not think it is a good ground for interference in the judgment of an acquittal. Appreciation of evidence and to draw inference from the same exclusively vests with the trial Court, but this discretion is to be exercised in a judicial manner and tae Court must take care that the conclusion arrived at has not resulted into any error of law or fact or miscarriage of justice. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any such defect. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.
3. We have noticed that the appeals against acquittal are being filed now‑a‑days as a matter of routine. This is not proper. Principles governing such an appeal are clear, definite well defined and well known. There is ample case law. As a matter of convenience reference is made to the following two cases: In Fateh Muhammad v. Baggo and others (P L D 1960 S C 286) at page 292 it has been observed:‑ "Thus, if the decisions of a question of fact has turned upon inadmissible evidence or upon a faulty reading of evidence, or where has been a departure from due procedure, in the reception of evidence or otherwise, in the trial of the matter, which is calculated to interfere with the due or safe dispensation of justice, interference by this Court will become necessary." Similarly in the case of Shah Nawaz v. Lal Khan and 2 others (1972 S C M R 286) at page 289, it has been observed that:‑ "No violation of any principle governing the assessment of the evidence before the Court has been alleged. Nor can it be contended that the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court are such as may be described as `shocking to the judicial conscience."
4. We expect that the State shall in future bear in mind these principles before filing an appeal against acquittal. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Provincial Law Secretary and the Advocate General, Punjab, for information. Appeal dismissed.