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. 181 of 1958, decided on 21st June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 4th February 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 524/64).
S. 307‑.‑‑Acauittal of accused by trial Court based on reasons wholly untenable‑Acquittal, held, rightly set aside by High Court‑Special leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Niaz Muhammad Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 21st June 1968.
The petitioner‑Ramzan, was tried along with 2 others under section 307/34, P. P. C. for attempting on the life of Muhammad Afzal P. W., who had sustained gun‑shot injuries by the shots fired at him by the petitioner. Ramzan was convicted under section 307, P. P. C. and sentenced to 4 years R. I., and a fine of Rs. 200 or in default two months' R. I., by the Additional District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar but was acquitted, on appeal, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar. State filed an appeal against acquittal in the High Court under section 417 of the Cr. P. C., which was accepted. The High Court found the petitioner guilty under section 307, P. P. C., and sentenced him to 3 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200 or in default 2 months' R. I.
As remarked by the High Court, the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for acquitting the petitioner are "wrong and shallow". The petitioner's offence was proved by unimpeachable ocular evidence of the witnesses who had no motive for falsely charging the petitioner.
The opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the medical evidence produced in the case was in conflict with the ocular evidence is merely conjectural. Muhammad Afzal P. W., had received several gun‑shot entrance wounds which were possible by the two shots, said to have been fired at him by the petitioner, according to the evidence of the eye‑witnesses. The High Court has rightly set aside the acquittal order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was based on reasons which are wholly untenable.
There is no substance in this petition which is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer