NOOR AHMED JAVED S/O CH. MUHAMMAD SHAFI (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

-@b 4w^,a.5- -I,.1 f=. V"1 P lr- Eu i L--,-r---lL _e CO]TT I}.ICA']'E (J1T 'I IIIj, LL/UI

Sp h1 t\'l h tt.tl )-., ! I

N a-nu A . 5*.r--l r/s {v\'s I L .;J" >.* "tl^'.-

SINDII II16II COURT

s, el D.B.

Composition <fi Bcnch.

Mv'5' M'iI---i*"'l K r...1"-- hE k .4, i. ^1 .(t,ia- , .'."I' l\t'. .

Datcs o{ hcarjDs: li -1! \r - ) c

Dccidcrl ,rn l:i 'L\ - '\ - ) '

(u)Judgment aPProvcd 1<rr Ycs

. rcporting. ;ffi"

CE RT IFICATts

Certiliccl tlrat llle .jtldgnlcnt r/Or'lcl is,bascd upon or cttuuciatcs u prjlcip{c ni rni-;l4".,i*i'n qui,iriii,,r ,r I^,r-*i,iirl ii "i 6ist in,pr"ssion / distinsttishcs l. ,i,c1:-rut.i/ r,:vcrscs/cxPlains a prr:vicus decision' lstrikc out whiclrcvcr is not applicable

NOI'E:-(i) This slip is only to tre t,scd whcn some actiott is to bo t{kcD' (ii) If tllc slip is usctl, U:e llcader must Bttach it lo thc top of lhe 0rst pagc ot thc Judgrnertt.

(iiir Rerdcr mnst ask the Judgc writirrg thc Judgtnent whctbcr tbe iudgnlenr is apProv,:d :'or leport'!8' (iv! 'l'hosc dircctions wlrich arc not to be used should be deletctl SGP., Kar.-*L (iii) 1459-5,000'*6'93--T'S'S'

t -13

'h

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

(Appellant Jurisdiction under Anti-Terrorism At'.., l9g7l h'/ Spcci:rl Arrli 'l'crrorisrl /,cquittirl Appeal No. I 201S ' ':,1 r'.1).;

Pttl Noor Ahmed Javed Son of Ch. Muhammad Shlrfi, (f. P./l \4uslirn, adlrlt, rcside nt o1' "r"//."

House No.B-711, tslock-6, ,( t.l [/ )\ .If Culshan c- Iqbal. I(a rac lr i.....

. Al, pc :t lt 1

YERSUS

\ (1ct4 1 Mst. Laiba Daughter oI An tl-ron1, lJurtles, Muslim, ad ult, rcsid<;nt of

Mchnroodalrad No. 1, l(arer.ch i

2, 'l'he State l{csponclcnt

ItlR No.ti5 1/20Ou L.l/s 365-A/34 Pl']{l ll/r,v Scction 7(a)(c) A'l'A 1997 I).S.Sttahnrh-c-l,'irisiri, Kar:rr:hi

ACQTIITTAL APPEAL UNDER SDCTTO 25 4-A OF THE

ANTI _'TEITRORISM Ail'T 199 ACT XXVII OF 1997 Bcing aggrieved an(l dissatisfied with the impugnr:rl Judgmcnt datcd 15-06 2015, passcd by thc learncd Jurdge ol' Anti-'l'errorisrrl ol Court No.lV I(arachi, (Mr. Anand Rarn D. Sairani) irr Spccial Czrsc No.A- 133/2|JOB, (The State Vs. Mst. Laiba), zrrising out of I..'Il? \o.85 1/2OOB under Scltion 365-A/34 PPC read with Er"-" Sectiorr 7, ATn 1997 <tl' Policc Station Stratrrah-t: I,'aisal harachi, rvhercby arcquitt.ing thc respoB-{ent No.1, :rbovc narned from the chargr, by tt:ndering pard()n Llnder Sectit-rrt 265-II(l) Criminal Procctlure Codc.'l'hc appcilarrt above nilmecl, most rcspr.:c1.fully prefcrs this zrppcal rarith

'T,'--/. "t Payr^ *r h t ? I {J cl- e v\'dtl-.^ (-r- {lrJ

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KAITACI{I

Prese ntl L/lr. I sti[('!\1ohttrtrnrni ltrt ritn Kluttt ,'ltht N4r. N'Ir lusti cr Zulfiu r ,'l li Sutrci

Spl. Crl. Anti-Terrorism Acquittal Appeal No.151 of 2015.

Aprprl'll;1P1 Noor Ahnred Jawecl Kharr son o[ (]h.

Muhamrnad Shafi through N4ushtatl Ahtretl.

Acl v ocate.

Iiesponclerrl No.l & 2 Mst. Laiba daughtcr of Anthony llurtles.rntl The State through Mr. Saleern Akhtal lltrrilr,, Arld itional Prosccutrrr Gene ral.

Date of hearing: 13.04.2020

Date of Jucll;ment: 29.04.2020.

IUDCi\'lItr-T i\IOIIAMMAD KAIIIN., KttAN AGllA. l:- Ihe rr's ponrlcnt lvas tt it'r.l .rrtl actltrittccl vitlt' jurlgnrcnt Llatecl I5-06-1015 Irassr'(1 b\ lealrtt',.1 JLtrllr,,' Atrti- Terrorism Cloult No.l\r l()r lrot givi,r!l r:ort.rplt'tt'lv tt uthlttl t virlt rrtt at trial rt,hich n,oulcl h.rvc r"iolatecl one ol ht'r'c.rnrliti.rtts l(,r beinll !lr,lrtlrl ) a p.rr(lo1r ull(ler S.j3lt arrli i,lt-) (lr.l']C n'h.'tr shc g.rvt'cvir.lenct'ag.rirl<l ltlr co-irccrrstcl in a case un,lcr' 5.f{r5 A I'1'C IIrt: apPellant,/t-omplarn.tttl lr.i' filt'tl this appeal .g.ri11st Jrel actltriit.rl u'hich rt't' Pn)P()st' t(J tlu itll l't' llri' jut{gnrent.

2.The brief facts of the case are that the [lcspronelt'trt (Msl l.ai[ra) rv.rs part of a gang which was involvec'l in kiclnapping f<rt' t'ansont alotrli rT'i{h other co-accused. After the charge was framecl and the responclt'nt l.t.lcl pleaded not guilty on 6.02.2009 in otte case against the l{esporrtlctrt .rr.rtl her co-accused u/s 365 A PPC (special case 133/2008 l-ht'State V 5alm.rrr Quershi ancl others pursuant to FlIt No.851/20t)8 u/s 365A/31 lll)( r/ rr' 7 'l'errorisrrr AT A 1997 lodged at I1S Shahra-e-Faisal proceetling before' Anti Court Il Karachi) but before any Prosecution witness had givt'|l cvi!lL'nr(' the respondent made an apPlication u/s 338 Cr.PC to be pardor.rt'cl r'vhich ra,as supported by SPP for the State anci allowecl vicle ortlet'clatt:tl 26 03.09.

'Ihe application was sub.iect to the c(nrditi(nrs (a) that she gat't' hcr statement u/s 164 Cr.I'C before a magistrate and then (b) that shc gaVt' t

s1f

evidence as PW 1 in the trial against her co-accused and (c) that mosl importantly she toltl the complete truth This order rvas not challengcel w'ls and reached finality in terms of the reasons whv the respotrclent allowed to become an apProver in return lor a conditional parrlon'

3.Pursuant to the aforesaicl order the respontlent matic lrcr statelncnt uncler S.164 Cr.PC in accordance with law and also gave evidence i.ts I'W

I

'l-hus' havinli at trial where she was cross examined by the accuseel complietl with the conditions of her parclon sl.rc requestocl hr:r pnr(i()rr l() be finalized and approved by thc court The' Statc httw'r'vcr "ras trl tltt' view that the respondent had not told the complete truth at trial .rtrtl as such had breached one of the ctlntlitions of her partlotr rvhich shrrulrl not be granted and once again she should ioin the ranks ot the at:cuseei' I lrt' trial court vide order tlated 16.07.2009 carne to tht'conclusi0n llr.rt "r,lrt'thct' or not the respondent hatl complied with thc'conditions o[ her p'rrdtttr attel could be pardoned woulcl be decitlecl after final argutnents' I his orclt'r' was challengetl before this ctrurt which vitle ortler clattd 27'10'2009 aftcr considering 5.338, 339 ancl 339 A CI.PC set asitle the oreler I'l tlrc tt'ial court tiated 16.07.2009 and directecl the trial court to clecide tlte issttt'rrl the responc{ent's parclon stricrly in accorclance with 5339 arrtl z\ Cr.PC.

4, After following the above sections th!'respondcnt was charrlictl 'rntl the prosecution callecl 7 lrw's to prove its case that the rcspontlc.nt lritl trtrt told the complete truth in her eviclence before the trial court atrti as such her pardon should not be allowed as she had not fullilled tht'conditions which were attached ttr her Parcltrn The accusecl/rcsptrntlt'trl 8'llt' ht'l statement under 5.342 Cr'.PC in rt'hich she stuck to her stance that sht'hatl tolcl the truth as per her statement before the trial court ancl .ts sttclt r.,.ls entitled to her pardon.

5.After hearing both sitles and after assessing tlrc'evitlcnctr on rt-cortl the learnetl trial judge came to the conclusion that there was r1o re'ts()ll t(l cleny the accused/ responclent her pardon and thus acquitted her itr efftt t of not lulfitling the conclitionality's attachecl to lrer parelon bv l'riling to give evidence of the comPlete truth.

{t(

6.The appellant/complainant being dissatisfied with the irnpugned judgment has filed this appeal against thc acquittal of thc accused/ respondent.

7.Learned counsel for tlle appellatlt contendecl that thc resPon(iellt hacl not told the complete truth before the trial court .lncl as such tht' appeal against acquittal sl.rould be allowed. When however hc w'.rs confrontcd by this court he u,as unablc to Poirtt out.rtrv evicierrtt'ttt slto,'r that the respondent hatl not toltl lhc complt'te truth Lrcfore tlte rrairr tr-i,rl as per the evidence protlucecl bv the prosecution in ht't trial [rrl in t'lkrl r.rot telling the complete truth in the nr..rin trial uncler S.365 A ['l'C agairrst her co-accused. In support of his contentions he placcc{ relianct' on Ashiq Hussain Shah V Ashiq AIi Shah and another (1982 SCMR 1l I0), Chulam Husain Soomro V The State (PLD ?(107 SC 71), Muhammad Si<ldique V The State (2020 SCMI{ 342), Niaz Ali Raiper V The State (2t)2t) l' C r. l. I 96), Muhammad Rasool V The State (2015 I'Cr. L I 391), Sajan and another V The State (2015 P Cr. 1. ] 953). Muhammad Riaz V llil<1iaz Khan (2012 SCMR 721), Ahmed Hussain alias AMMhe State (l'l.l ) 2008 SC 110), Sh. Muhamnrad Amfad V The State (PLt) 2(X)3 5('70J).rnrl Anwar Shamim and another V The State (2010 SCMR 1791),

8.Learned APC for the State fully supported the actluittal appc.rl and submitted that it should be allowetl .rs the rcspondent harl lie'tl bet()rc th(' trial court at the main trial ancl had not given truthful evirlerrcc' antl as such her pardon should be cancelled as she hacl not cornplictl witlr tlrt' conditionality's which were a pre condition r:f her being parclonerl arrtl .rs such sl.re should be made to stand trial.

9, Despite notice to the respondent No.1 (Ms Laiba) she dicl not 1.rut in an appearance either herself or through counscl. Since howcver htr acquittal appeal was central and crucially interlinked to otlrer appcals which were pentiing before us corrcerning the kidnapl:ing for rattsttrtt cases in which she gave eviclence as a PW (approver) wl.tich leacl to tl.te corlviction of some of her co-accused who hacl been languishing in jail for some time we were of the view that it would not serve the interests ()f justice to keep her acquittal appeal penrling as this \^,ould further tlelal the hearing of th6'other appeals in the kielnapping for ranson'r c.rst's in

sTt

which she gave evidence. This was because if her appeal agairrst acqttittal was allowed then her evi<lence against those convictecl coultl not [t ttsct] against them and she would need to be arrested and facc trial for kidnapping for ransom or if the acquittal appeal was clismissecl then w(' could hear the other appeals against the conviction of her co-accttsctl whist considering the evidence which she Save against them at trial l lre interests of justice in our view therefore required that the acquittal aPPoal needecl to be decidec.l without further delay and in any evcnt learrrt'tl AI'C coulcl assist us vis a vis her case as officer of thr-. court which lrt' r't't-r' iairlr and ably dicl.

10.We have heard the arguments ()f the lt'arnecl coullsel f()r tht'f),)rti('s, gone through the entire evirlence which has been read out Lrv tht' appellant, the impugned judgment r,r'ith their able assistat.t.t' atr.l ltar'<' considered the relevant law including that cited .rt the trar.

11, We have gone through the case law citecl by tht'appellant httu't'r't't' we find it to be of little, if any, assistancc to hitn lrasell on tl.tL' p.rrtit ul.tt facts and circumstances of this case, 'fhis is bccause Irearlv all tlrt' r. itt'r.l case law concerns kidnap for raltsom cases whereas the case itl harltl concerns whether the conclitionality's of a parclon have been truthfullv complied with. Wlrether or not tlle accusecl / respondcnt sl]oulel lt.lvt'[rt't'tt made an aPProvel in these kidnapping cases is trt'vontl thc scopt'rrl tlrt'sr'' appeals and in any event the clecision on that issue has reachecl finalitl'as discussed above.

'12. At the outset we are of the View that it woulcl [.re helPful t() sL'r ()ut the sections which are at issue namelv 5.338,339 antl 339 (A) Cr.[)C whit'h for ease of reference are set out below:

338.Power to grfinl or tttnder pnrdon. At anv time bcforc tht' judgrnerrt is passetl, the Fligh Courl or tlrt'Court ol Sessions trying the case may, with the vi('h' ()l obtaining on the trial the evidence of anv Pcrs()tt supposed to have been directly or indirectly cttttct'rnetl in, or privy to, any such offence, tencler, or ortler the t

sl3

[of f icer-in-charge of the prosecution in the clistrictl to tender, a pardon on tlre same condition ttl such l.rersott;

Providecl that no person shall be tenclere'r'i partion u'htr is involvecl in an offetrce relating to I]urt or qall with()ut perrnission of the victim trr, as the casL'lna\' [.re, of thc heirs of the victimll

339.(.onwilnettt q losott l.t irlt(tl lnnlott lms lttL'tr lctt'llul (1) Where a pardon has been tendered under section 337 or section 338, [the I'ublic I'rosecutor certifies that in his opinionl any person who has accepted such tender has, either by willfully concealing inything essentiat or by giving f.rlse evidence, not conrplier'l with the condition on which the tendt'r was tttr'lc Isuch person may bel tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered, ()r l()t ,rlr\ ()tllt l' offeuces of which he aPpcars t(, halvc btt'tl liuillr irl connectirrn \{'itll [he si]llre In.rtter:

IProvitleti that such person shall n()t b(' tri('(] i(]it'rtlv with anl, ol tht other .rccusecl, itntl that lr,' slrall 1".' entitle(l to prleacl at suclr trial that he h,rs cotrtplit'rl rt'itlr the conditions upon u'hicl.t such ttncler was tn.rtlci in which case it shall be for the prosecution to Prove that such conditions have not been comPlied withl.

(2)i'he statement tnatle bv a Person w'lro has (r(( ('pt('(l a tender of pardon m.rv be given in e vitlt'nc t' a1',ailtst hirn [at such trial].

(3)No prrosecution fol thc offenct of git inll lalst' eviclence in respect tlI such stilt(]lllent sllall I'c entertainecl rvitheut the sanction of the Higll (irurt.

[3j9-A], Proceiurt in trid of Sn'rson ttrtti'r sr'r /trrtr .i.j\). ( l) The Court trving under sectiorr 339 a Pers()r.r whrr h.t,' acceptecl a tender of pardon shall, belore tht't'r'ir'lt'ttit' of the witnesses for the prosecution is t;rkt'tr, ask tht' accusetl whether he pleads that he has coml,lit'tl rlitlr tl.Ie conditions on which the tender.f the }.rartlrrtr rvas macle.

(2)If the accused does so plead, the Court shall record the plea and proceed rvith the trial, .rrrd sh.rll before fudgment is passed in the case, find whether or not the accused has complied with the conditions of the pardon, and, if it is found that he has so complied, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything containecl in this Code, pass judgment of acquittal. (Lrclci addt'cl)

13.Following the order o[ this court as mentioned above to lollor'r' strictly the procedure under 5.339 and 339 (A) Cr.PC the prttsecutor certified that in his opinion the resPondent hacl not compliecl r,r'ith thc

.irl condition on which the tentler of pardolr r'r'as lnacle. Narnt'lt', tlrat sht' hati not told the whole trutl.r and lrar-1 concealctl the truth.

14.This leatl to a full dressed trial of the accused/ respondent whereby it was for the prosecution to Prove that strch contlitions wo(' n()l compliecl rvith beyoncl a reasonable rloubt.

15.We have reviewed the charge ar.rcl find that it is not in line with thc accusecl,/ respondent having violatecl her contlitions of Pitrcltrtl h<tu't'r't'r based on the earlier prrreeelings anr.l orclers ()f the c()uIt an(l tlrc ('l('l('r'1(.(' taken by the accused resp<tnclent in her 5.342 Cr'PC sLrte-mont 6'1' .11-1' 1rl the view that this is of uo consequence as the accused / respc,nde'nt kttt'tl full well what she was accusetl of ancl what charges she was clcletltlirrg herself against. Likewise the prosecution was awal'e o[ the s.rrrrt' rs was the judge so in our'\,iet,r,any tlefect in the charge is incottst'tlut'tr t i,rl especially as it in no way prejudicerl tlrc accused /rt'spotrtit'trt itr lrt'r' defence.

'16. We note that no prosecution ra'itness has bccn alrlc to show' that lht' respondent/ accusecl rlid not tell the complett' trutlr irr ht'r t'r'i,.lt'ttt t' Neither her S.1& statelnent not her evirlence befttrc' tht' trial totttt n'ar exhibited so in our view it h'as almost impossible for tht pr()s('cutr(rr t() prove that there was any deviation between the two anrl tll.rt thc accused/ respondent lvas r.rot telling the complete trutlr. Ilvcn otht'rtvist' althougl.r not a part o( her tlial recorti wt' lrave rearl h('r s. I ()l (-r.l'( statement and it is sirnilar to the evidence which she gal'e unr,lt'r tr.tth at trial anci thus it appears tl.rat she stuck to the truth. The eviclt'nct, ol tht' abcluctee PW 4 Khurranr.|avecl who dirl give evidence at her tri"rl is.tlso itt consonance with her evidence and does not suggest th.rt she has not toltl the complete truth.

"17. The trial court found as untler whilst acquittirrg the accused/ respondent at typed P.10 of the impugned jutlgment which is st't out below;

"On the order hsnd the star tuittrcssps I'tNs trutttul abozte seem to haue naruated alntost tlre sant storv and supported the uersion of PW Mst. l-aibs (lltL, respondent m this npyte ngnntst acqurltrrl) rrs llrt' rrhr[trtltt in his tphole slntertrcnt nnrrntes llnt ona nnla nni LtrtL, .[.unlt ttnrc lo lutn nnd rtskarl lo slnu,n lnrtsL' ltt ltttrt.ltrsL' ruttl lltr'u I(r

i 8o

nbrlucted hin nnd kept hint sorrrculrr,t, itt llu'ultolt slorq 'r' st erl bt1 tlu' f icti t llrc lu'tt rtcL'ttstd ;rt'rsrttl-s i'' ottt' trtrtlr nnrl ote .fennle rtre ronnting arottttd tht' r-fise rtttd ttL' rrtrtl lhirtl nnd .ftturth ltersons lns heeu ntnrci itt it' tlarr lltt lrto ptrsons i,e. nttle nul .ll'nmb nrc ttol trrtttttr{ itt ltts slrtltttttttl befon' the trid Cottrt lxnpet'tr, sittLt lruly rttttrstrl trttrt'' ( r/'( /irl fo'nltrrl ntl nrmle rur tt1tpli :rliotr ri/s .1.1.9 tendering ptrdttn tthitlt ttttls t'(ttlsid?rul n i l-ollott'tttS llk' procc,lrri'rtf lrcr stnttnet ry's 164 l-rPC ttns n'ttvtltl tpherein slrc nnued lt'r ttt he fennle fi r'ustd lul llrougltl llt( natne oi nccuserl lnratt Altsrttt @ -Slcrrrl7 rts rtnitt rtL.t.trsnl r her cotnpanion in llrc oflt'ner:, ot bringrttg s <lt lirl ott record tpltitlr ttlhenoist ttts ltildttt /o so,,/r {'1,1.//l rrs r)'//r/ tlrc tnLe nu'nber uho lns bten asstgned role ct.[ nrconltrtnirl lady rcttstd u,lnsa tmnrc u'ns ttol dtsclosed sptctftttlly trt th? st(ttcnent ttl- nttdtclt't' nl firsl tinrc tttta on vrrlirr r rtlll stal(rua t o.[ rccusad/PlN Ltihn racoriti tt/s lt'4 ( tl)l . lltr n n u,itrttss i.e. uc'ltttt lns nlso tnrnttL'rl thorrl ottt ttrrtlr nctttsti in his Sttllt,trcnt tt,hose rutnn, rtdntiltcdly Itrottgltl otr rtcu'd ln1 ntustd/PW Ltiltrt.

ln ttieu oI the aboue it is crystul clt'or llnl ttt'urscrl Laiba has nmde tnrc stitement o[ uct'ttrrut ,utd h'ts brougltt ott recorcl nanrc of one acttrsed i,t, lttrnrtt Ahsan @ Sunru1 uhose rcle lus also b?cfi st.lt.'i uictin/abductee uitltout nam?, since in this c.ts( tlrcr? are 03 male accused il attusedfl'}W Laiba did not anc the accused specificallrl ttho has a.corrtftaniul 1t'itlt her ir the u'hole story, it tpould haz'a betn dilficrrll lo identifi1 that one ntsle p sotl .ts tlrc prose<.rttitttt rrtsl at epidence dttring trial ittuolz'es Jotr ucctts*l pctsous that too lpithout n.tmc a d role hen<'e I um nf llrt lita that accused/PW Laibq has rutdt truc/full stott'tttt'ttl of account rrnd luts t'Ltntplitd tritlr cottrlitirttrs o.l pardon as laid dttu,n ty'ut 338 CrI'C, llu'rt.forc, sltt is made approter of the case urul gratrt lrer punlot ry's .llS CrPC.(bolcl adclccl)

POlNT NL),J Sitce nccused Lnibt u'ns made npproorr in tlu' pttiuls No'l €t 2 nnd slrc hns been lenderecl pnrdon tts slrc ltrtt ututPltal rt,ith ltrot,ision lnid dortrt u/s. 338 Cr't'1. llu'rL'litn' 4tt ts ncqritted u/s 265-H(i) Cr.l'C."

18.lt is bv nor,r' ryell settlcd that judgllrent oi .rctluitr.rl r-.rrl'l rrol ["' interfered with unless certain unim;reachable material is broughl otr recortl warranting irrtctfe'renct' by this Court into tlrtr iut{11rtt'nt t'l acquittal passecl b}'the trial Court. The Superior Courts have also tirne and again laid down the principle that the consideration for deciding a Criminal Appeal against acquittal are quite difference from that of a Criminal Appeal against conviction as in the former case presumption of double innocence of the accused is available in the (ase' lt is a settlc?

5 tl I

principle of law that the superior Courts act slowly in interfering with an order of acquittal, unless grounds for acquittal are perverse, wholly illogical or unreasonable. The fact that there can be a contrary view on re-appraisal of the evidence by the court hearing acquittal appeal simpliciter would not be sufficient to interfere with acquittal order'

19.Itt tlrt'casc'oi lVluhammed Ashgar V State (Pl-l) 19(l+ S( llll) it \\ 'r\ lrclrl bl'tlre 5utr.r|t'nre c()tlrt tll.lt ,httrhlt yrr'tttttltltrttt t'l ttttt'tr'tttLt t\t:ls ttr frnotrr ol ttttl ntquiltci,rt'Lttsttl, ottr llnrl trvttl ttttttsttl \lttli l', yn'rttrt"i l" !"' llIro(r'lll /1,]/ess ltrtttti lLtltL'stttllt/ rtui ollrr llttl i LitlllL'!Lttl l'otttlttl ltt\t ltit\ ndjttdgtd ltittr tutt gutllrl. lt r'r'as lurtht'r' hclLl that trtltrltrutLL' ttt lltr' rtrrltr tt rrL'tlttiltnl Lrrrr r'tnly bt uruk' ii llu'onltr ol tottrl fulot(' is tttrrtti.ltslltl rllrur.! 1r/ l'n'(ftt'ot is busL't{ tttt tltt t'ictI ct! llt L'it11(trt'itltttlt tN ttt,ltttt!l ,"t",, r 'tt'tti'l htlic, or tlrc itittrt l/]'s ntisrrttd lltr l(idltt r or tgtr|rrrl ttttlnrltrttl t't'ttlrtttt'ttl' 't'ltt'tt ttort-intar.lL'renL't'ttill regtlt ut tis(tttt.iug( t\l ltts!1.t'. Nltrt ltLl llutl tlu illl)rllttlr ttr rroisiLtrul unrl lbrtu< t rltlli''rrl q)t ttt tlttt,t ll tl irrtitl il btl ltltl tt)t'tl ttll ttol lttstiftl sc'l/ittg rrstrl,' llr ttrhr ttl-tttLlttttlil uttLl tlt'rt 'lrrt rr'r,t5lt/ itri' lr 1'r gtt,t'tt lo lle r-r-utc/irsitrtts o/ llr'lrirrl ta,rrl.

20.[n the case of Mirza Noor Hussain vs. Farooq Zaman and 2 olllels (1993 SCM[{ 305) the Supreme Court held as untler:

" .............thc judgnu'nt of tlu' trinl Cotrt is strpporh'd ht1 sorrrul reosons and this Cowt cannot subslitule ils o: 'n f/flings in yl*t thereof unless , , . . . .t|rtl llw ftndngs............nrr 'nrltlirtrtl .

'sltocking, 'ridiculous', 'bnsed on nisnnding of rttrlrncc' trtrl 'lending to miscarritge o.f justice' "

?^1. [n the case of Yar Muhammad and 3 others Vs. The State ( ')()3 I

SCMR 96) the Suprerne Cortrt observecl as untle t:

"l)nless the jutlgment of the trinl Court is pen,erse, LontPletulv illegol and on perusal of ettidence no other decision cnn be gttt'tr except tlfit tlrc acarced is guilhl, llrcre lns heeu mtnplelt ruisreading of euiderce lnding to tttisnrringc ttf lrrslitr', lltt lliglr Cottrt will nol exercise jurisdiction urulcr section 477, Cr' P.C ltr exercising this jurisdiction tlu Higlt Courl is nlutys slort' unless il feels that gross injustice lms been done in tlrc rulruintstrntion ol I criminal justite.','

s

irL

22.Thus, basecl on our reassessment of evidence coupled with tho \'orv narrow scope as a matter tlf law with interfering in appeals against acquittal on our reassessment of the evitlence on recorr'l we do NOT lirrti that the prosecution was able to Prove that the responLlont failetl trr comply with the conditiolality's attachecl to her partlon an(l tht'trial c()urt as mentioned above has given souncl reasons for re'aching such a conclusion which we fully agree with and do not requirc our intt'rlt't(ntt' and as such this appeal against accluittal is clisrnissetl.

?i The appeal against actluittal is clisposed of irr thc aLrr)\'(- t('rrls trtnl lul"i, ,

J

,q\ l )o

I