This criminal appeal arose from the High Court's reversal of an acquittal order passed by the trial court regarding a murder charge under Section 302(b) PPC. The appellant, along with co-accused, was initially acquitted of the murder of Khalil Ahmed due to inordinate delay in reporting, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the doubtful presence of inimical witnesses. The High Court subsequently convicted the appellant while maintaining the acquittal of co-accused with identical roles. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's reversal of acquittal adhered to established judicial principles. The Court held that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and can only be set aside if the trial court's judgment is blatantly perverse or impossible. Finding that the trial court's view was a possible one based on the evidence, and noting that the prosecution's case lacked certainty, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the acquittal, emphasizing that acquittal cannot be reversed merely because a contrary view is possible.
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo, appellant herein, was tried along side Abdul Razzaq and Sakina Bibi, co-accused for committing qatl-e-amd of Khalil Ahmed at fajarwela on 15.2.2002 within the remit of Police Station Chunian, District Kasur . According to the complainant, on the fateful day, after offering fajar prayer , he was on way back home with Khalil Ahmed deceased a head of witness es; as the deceased went past house of Sakina Bibi accused he was intercepted by the appellant as well as Abdul Razzaq. Upon exhortation, the appellant and Abdul Razzaq co-acc used gave sota blows to the deceased; motive for crime is cited as alienation of immovable property by the deceased in favour of Sakina Bibi co-accused, his second wife as well as the appellant, a transaction that he attempted to revoke in the wake of dif ferences with his better half.
2. The accused were indicted before the Additional Sessions Judge, who proceeded to acquit them vide judgment dated 30.10.2002 vires whereof were challenged through appeal admitted to the extent of present appellant and finally allowed vide impugned judgment dated 15.2.2016 whereby the appellant stand convicted under clause (b) of Section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860; sentenced to imprisonment for life, he is directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- or to undergo six months S.I. with benefit of Section 382-B of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was no occasion for the learned High Court to reverse the appellant' s acquittal that too after disse cting his case from identically placed co-accused, extended benefit of doubt. It is next argued that view taken by the learned trial Court being a possible view compatible with the evidence brought on the record was not open to any legitimate exception; the bottom line is that the impugned reasoning formulated by the learned High Court to convert appellant' s acquittal into conviction being in conflict with settled norms of safe administration of criminal justice and judicial principles applicable to reversal of acquittal warrants interference by this Court.
4. A variety of reasons weighed with the learned trial Judge to acquit the accused from the charge; inordinate delay in recourse to law being foremost, these include improbability of witnesses' presence; their enmity with the accused, as well as, contradictions in their depositions and thus he found it unsafe to return a guilty verdict. None of the reasons cited by the learned trial Judge has been found by us as artificial or unrealistic. Even otherwise on an independent analysis, genesis of prosecution case does not appear to be free from doubt. Deceased was 70 years of age and in a chilled winter morning his presence at the crime scene within the view of witnesses, admittedly inimical towards the accused, available per chance and with formidable past has rightly been viewed with caution by the learned trial Judge. Ocular account is in conflict with medical evidence inasmuch as according to the crime report both the appellant, as well as, Abdul Razzaq, co-accused, are assigned one blow each to the deceased, whereas according to the initial medical examination, Medical Officer noted solitary injury on the head, its impact on the eye has been utilized by the witnesses to array the latter in the crime. Deputation of Sakina Bibi to monitor deceased' s arrival so as to inform her son about deceased' s arrival is also an aspect of the case that requires a pinch of salt. Certainly there was no occasion for the learned High Court to convert appellant' s acquittal into conviction after it had itself disbelieved prosecution evidence qua two out of three accused, one with an identical role.
It is by now well settled that acquittal carries with it double presumption of innocence; it is reversed only when found blatantly perverse, resting upon fringes of impossibility and resulting into miscarriage of justice. It cannot be set aside merely on the possibility of a contra view. The High Court has derogate d from settled principles of law and thus departure does not commend itself with approval. Resultantly , Crimina l appeal is allowed, impugned judgment dated 15.2.2016 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge and shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Above are the reasons of our short order of even date which is reproduced as under: "For detailed reasons to follow , the instant criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo are set aside. He is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other criminal case."