Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 193 of )967, decided on 5th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 6th April 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1965).
Art. 58(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑Petition barred by 2 days‑Case being one under S. 302, Penal Code, delay condoned.
Khadim Mohy‑ud‑Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mazharul Haque Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Karamat Ali, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 5th October 1967.
.‑This petition is barred by 2 days. As this is a case under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, we condone the delay.
The petitioner Muhammad Amin and 4 others, namely, Mandha, Roshan, Bashir and Sadiq, were tried for offences under sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Montgomery, who tried the case convicted Amin and Mandba under section 302/34, P. P. C. and sentenced them to transportation for life. He also convicted both under section 307/34, P. P. C. and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The others were acquitted. On appeal the convictions and sentences of Muhammad Amin were maintained by the High Court, but those of Mandha were set aside. Muhammad Amin now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.
The incident in which Ahman and Mamma were injured took place at about 9 a.m. on 19‑3‑64 near a wheat field in village Mal. According to the prosecution, Muhammad Amin opened the attack by firing a pistol which bit Ahman on his right shoulder. As Ahman was trying to escape he fired a second shot which hit him on the back of his shoulder and arm. Muhammad Amin and his companions then assaulted Ahman and his companions Mamma with chhavis and sticks. The injured were then removed to Malka Hans Dispensary where Ahman succumbed to his injuries. The Doctor who held autopsy on the dead body of Ahman found as many as 19 injuries on his person. The doctor who examined Mamma found 15 injuries on his person. The accused Amin had only two simple injuries on his person.
The prosecution case rested on the evidence of 4 eye‑witnesses. Furthermore, the ejector which was found at the spot fitted the pistol which was recovered from the house of accused Amin. Thus the above recoveries furnished sufficient corroboration to the evidence of the eye‑witnesses. The High Court relying on the above evidence maintained the convictions of the petitioner Muhammad Amin.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Courts below were not justified in placing much reliance on the recoveries made in the case. Ejector was recovered from the spot on 19‑3‑64. Amin was arrested on 22‑3‑64 and the same day the pistol was recovered from hip house. Muharrir Head Constable received the sealed parcels from Sub‑Inspector on 24‑3‑64 and on 26‑3‑64 they were sent to Lahore. Thus, there was no delay in transmitting the scaled parcels and hence the High Court was justified in relying on the recoveries made in this case. Motive for the crime is also not lacking.
In our opinion, the charge has been fully brought home to the petitioner and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced.
This petition is dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer