Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case: Benefit of Doubt, Defective Investigation and Double Presumption of Innocence.
 |
| . |
مقدمے کا پس منظر
زیرِ نظر مقدمہ قتلِ عمد کے الزام سے متعلق تھا جس میں ٹرائل کورٹ نے ملزم کو بری کر دیا، بعد ازاں ہائی کورٹ نے بھی بریت کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا۔ سپریم کورٹ کے سامنے سوال یہ تھا کہ آیا ایسے حالات میں بریت کے فیصلے میں مداخلت کی جا سکتی ہے یا نہیں۔
عینی شہادت کی حیثیت
عدالتِ عظمیٰ نے قرار دیا کہ موقع واردات پر گواہوں کی موجودگی مشکوک تھی۔ واقعہ رات کے وقت پیش آیا مگر روشنی کے کسی مؤثر ذریعے کو ثابت نہیں کیا جا سکا، جس کے باعث عینی شہادت قابلِ اعتماد نہ رہی۔
طبی اور عینی شہادت میں تضاد
استغاثہ کے مطابق مقتول کو ایک سے زائد فائر لگے، جبکہ طبی رپورٹ میں صرف ایک زخم کا ذکر تھا۔ اس واضح تضاد نے استغاثہ کے مؤقف کو مزید کمزور کر دیا اور شک کو تقویت دی۔
تفتیشی نقائص
تحقیقات کے دوران جائے وقوعہ کی درست نشاندہی نہ کی گئی، فائر کرنے کے مقام کو واضح نہ کیا گیا اور قریبی افراد سے مؤثر معلومات حاصل نہ ہو سکیں۔ ایسے نقائص نے مقدمے کی بنیاد کو غیر مستحکم کر دیا۔
شناخت پریڈ کی عدم موجودگی
ملزم کو کافی عرصہ گزرنے کے بعد نامزد کیا گیا اور شناخت پریڈ کا انعقاد نہیں ہوا۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ تاخیر سے کی گئی شناخت کی قانونی حیثیت کمزور ہوتی ہے۔
فائدۂ شک کا اصول
عدالت نے اعادہ کیا کہ فوجداری قانون میں اگر ایک بھی معقول شک پیدا ہو جائے تو اس کا فائدہ ملزم کو دیا جانا لازم ہے۔ شک کی کثرت ضروری نہیں بلکہ ایک مضبوط شبہ بھی بریت کے لیے کافی ہے۔
بریت کے خلاف اپیل اور دوہرا قرینۂ بے گناہی
سپریم کورٹ نے وضاحت کی کہ بریت کے فیصلے کے بعد ملزم کو بے گناہی کا دوہرا تحفظ حاصل ہو جاتا ہے، اس لیے اپیلی عدالتیں صرف غیر معمولی حالات میں ہی مداخلت کر سکتی ہیں۔
منصفانہ سماعت اور قانونی توازن
عدالت نے اس اصول کو بھی اجاگر کیا کہ منصفانہ سماعت فوجداری انصاف کا بنیادی ستون ہے، اور یہ تصور کہ ملزم قانون کا لاڈلا ہے، دراصل غیر جانبدار اور متوازن انصاف کی ضمانت ہے۔
نتیجہ
تمام شواہد اور قانونی اصولوں کو مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ استغاثہ ملزم کے خلاف مقدمہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا، لہٰذا بریت کے فیصلے میں مداخلت کی کوئی گنجائش موجود نہیں۔
Must read Judgement
2024 S C M R 51
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
MUHAMMAD RIAZ---Petitioner
Versus
KHURRAM SHEHZAD and another---Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 290-L of 2015, decided on 27th October, 2023.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2011)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Presence of witnesses at place of incident doubtful---Defective investigation---Conflict between ocular and medical evidence---Ocular testimony in the case was led by the complainant, and two other persons who were residents of a village situated around 30 to 35 kilometers from the place of occurrence---Incident occurred in the night at 8:55 p.m. in the month of October and the testimony of the eye-witnesses remained unsuccessful in establishing any source of light at the scene of the crime---It was only after a lapse of two and a half months of the incident that the respondent (acquitted accused) was implicated in the case---No identification parade was conducted for determining the involvement of the accused persons and the evidentiary value of identification at a belated stage had little value in the eyes of the law, more particularly when the lineaments and physiognomy of the accused were not mentioned anywhere by the complainant or the eye-witnesses---Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not show the place of incident in the site plan through the prosecution claimed that the incident occurred near a hotel; I.O. also admitted that he had not demarcated the place from where the accused had fired at the victim in the rough site plan, nor had the prosecution witnesses shown him the specific place of death of the deceased at the site of the occurrence; I.O. further admitted that he had called upon the inhabitants of the place of occurrence i.e. owners of the nearby haveli and service station, but they could not provide any detail of the occurrence or any description of the assailants---As per the prosecution case, the deceased sustained two firearm injuries, however the postmortem report revealed that only one firearm injury was found on the deceased's body---High Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to substantiate the case against the respondent---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
(b) Criminal trial---
----Presence of eye-witnesses on the spot doubtful---In such a situation, the ocular testimony (of the alleged eye-witness) should be excluded from consideration.
(c) Criminal trial---
----Benefit of doubt---Principle---It is not obligatory or compulsory that there should be several circumstances creating doubts in order to justify the extension of benefit of doubt to the accused; on the contrary, even a simple circumstance creating reasonable doubt vis-a-vis, the guilt of the accused is sufficient to entitle him to such benefit.
(d) Criminal trial---
----Evidence---Multiple conclusions---Preference---If two sensible and judicious conclusions can be drawn keeping in mind the substance of the evidence, then the view which espouses and provides backing towards acquittal must be subscribed and assented to.
(e) Appeal against acquittal---
----Double presumption of innocence---Scope---In an appeal against acquittal, the Court would not ordinarily interfere and would instead give due weight and consideration to the findings of the Court acquitting the accused which carries a double presumption of innocence, i.e. the initial presumption that an accused is innocent until found guilty, which is then fortified by a second presumption once the Court below confirms the assumption of innocence, which cannot be displaced lightly.
Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 and The State and others v. Abdul Khaliq and others PLD 2011 SC 554 ref.
(f) Appeal against acquittal---
----Interference in an acquittal judgment by the Appellate Court---Grounds---Courts are slow in interfering with an acquittal judgment, unless it is shown to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law, or suffers from errors of grave misreading or non-reading of the evidence---Such judgments should not be lightly interfered with and a heavy burden lies on the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence which the accused has earned and attained on account of his acquittal---Interference in a judgment of acquittal is rare and the prosecution must show that there are glaring errors of law and fact committed by the Court in arriving at the decision, which would result, into grave miscarriage of justice; the acquittal judgment is perfunctory or wholly artificial or a shocking conclusion has been drawn---Acquittal judgment should not be interjected until the findings are perverse, arbitrary, artificial, speculative, and ridiculous---Court of appeal should not interfere simply for the reason that on the re-appraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could possibly be arrived at, and the factual conclusions should not be upset, except when palpably perverse, suffering from serious and material factual infirmities.
(g) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 10-A---Phrase "the accused is the favourite child of law"---Connotation---Said phrase does not imply that the Court should grant any unwarranted favour, indulgence or preferential treatment to the accused, rather it was coined to maintain a fair-minded and unbiased sense of justice in all circumstances, as a safety gauge or safety contrivance to ensure an evenhanded right of defence with a fair trial for compliance with the due process of law, which is an integral limb of the safe administration of criminal justice and is crucial in order to avoid erroneous verdicts, and to advocate for the reinforcement of the renowned doctrine "innocent until proven guilty".
Mukhtar Ahmad Gondal, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Mirza Abid Majeed, D.P.G. Punjab for the StatF