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.
Criminal Review Petition No. 15 of 1967, decided on 21st December 1967.
(On review from the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated the 5th October 1967, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 227 of 1967).
Art. 62‑Review of judgment by Supreme Court‑Point considered by Court on last occasion-- No ground for granting review.
Munir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 21st December 1967.
‑This is a petition for the review o an order passed by this Court on the 5th of October, 1967, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 227 of 1967.
The only ground upon which the review is sought is that the Court had not taken into consideration the fact that the High Court had totally failed to examine the evidence in the case whet dismissing a petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which bad been filed to challenge the conviction of the petitioner under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
The High Court had dismissed the revision by a short order on the ground that re‑appraisal of evidence is not normal under taken in a revision but it had also noted that "nothing the shock the foundations of justice has been shown".
This Court refused to interfere, because it was conceded frog the Bar by the learned counsel then appearing for the petitioner that the relevant evidence in the case had been brought to the notice of the learned Judge hearing the revision petition. In that event it was said by this Court that the sentence quoted from the order above really showed that the learned Judge had even after examining the evidence found nothing therein to justify a revision.
Learned counsel appearing in support of the review petition now seeks to contend that this is not so, for, if the learned Judge in the High Court had examined the evidence he would have noticed that the medical evidence gave a complete lie to the prosecution case, in so far as it found no corresponding cut marks in the shirt worn by the victim at the time of the incident.
This point, it appears, was specifically raised before the Magistrate but he found no substance in it, because the shirt was, according to the recovery memo., found torn at several places. The Magistrate, therefore, in our view, rightly held that possibly due to this torn condition of the shirt all the corresponding cut marks in respect of 8/9 injuries caused to the victim were not found on the shirt but there was certainly one cut mark on the shirt which corresponded with one of the injuries. The absence of the other cut marks, therefore, do not belie the prosecution case.
If this evidence was placed before the learned Judge in the High Court, as stated by the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition for special leave in this Court, the opinion expressed by the High Court was, in every, way, justified and disclosed that the High Court had applied its mind to the evidence as well. There is no substance, therefore, in this contention which is now sought to be raised. This is, in any event, not a ground for granting a review, as this point was considered by this Court on the last occasion. This petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer