Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1951, decided on 16th October 1951.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated the 13th June 1950 of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 1949).

---

-‑Criminal appeal Appreciation of evidence‑Weight to be attached to prosecution evidence and credibility of witnesses‑Discretion of final Court of facts and not matters for determination of Supreme Court.

S. 32 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164‑Section 164, Cr. P. C. does not override or control S. 32, Evidence Act, 1872.

Allah Baksh and others v. The Crown P L D 1953 F C 111 ref.

Vir Sen Sawhny, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Muhammad Siddiq, Attorney for Appellant.

Abdul Aziz Khan, Advocate‑General Punjab C: M. Sharif, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 16th October 1951.

This appeal, with our special leave obtained by the appellant Inayat Ullah, is against his conviction and sentence of transportation for life passed by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellant with one other was charged with offences under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 19 (f) of the Arms Act, before the Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore, for the murder of one Karam Illahi and for the possession of an unlicenced spear, but was acquitted. On appeal, however, by the local Government, the Lahore High Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above. It was urged before us by counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P. W. 11 (Siraj Din), P. W. 13 (Sohna) and P. W. 14 (Mst. Bhago) should not have been accepted and relied upon by the High Court, as these witnesses were interested in the deceased, being closely related to him and their evidence was unconvincing and unsatisfactory; but these are matters relating to the weight to be attached to the prosecution evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, which rest solely in the discretion of the final Court of facts, and are not for the determination of this Court.

Next, it was urged that the dying declaration (Exh. P. C.), being recorded by a Magistrate (P. W. 2) having only third class powers could not be legally taken into consideration by the Court in view of section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code; but that section does not over‑ride or control section 32 of the Evidence Act. Allah Baksh and others v. The Crown (PLD 1951FC111). Lastly it was suggested that the joint trial of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and 19(f ) of the Arms Act was bad in law, but as the charge under section 19(f ) was to the effect that the alleged murder had been committed with the unlicensed weapon, there is no substance in this contention also. The appeal, therefore, fails on all the grounds urged and it is accordingly dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.