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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 16 of 1970, decided on 22nd June 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 6th November 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 1969).
Art. 58(3)‑Complainant injured during robbery committed at his house, recognising one accused and promptly naming him to his wife and a few neighbors‑Complainant's wife and neighbours corroborating such part of complainant's statement‑Prosecution case free from embellishments or false exaggerations‑Nothing, in circumstances, held, justifies interference by Supreme Court.
Aminul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 22nd June 1970.
Petitioner Bashiruddin seeks special leave to appeal against his conviction under section 395, P. P. C. for which he has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprison ment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year, by the Sessions Judge, Noakhali, which was affirmed by the High Court by dismissing the petitioner's appeal in limine.
P. W. Priyanath Das Gupta is the sole eye‑witness of this society which was committed in his house on the night following the 19th of June 1968. He was injured by his assailants. He was able to identify the petitioner alone, as he knew him before, and named him promptly to his wife, P. W. 3 Sushangini Das Gupta, and a few Muslim neighbours who reached the spot soon after the occurrence, and who corroborated his version. His wife did not claim there cognition of the accused and merely stated that she got the names of the dacoits from her husband. The pro secution case seems to us to be free from any embellishments or false exaggerations.
The learned counsel for the petitioner complained against the summary dismissal of the appeal by the High Court without proper appraisement of evidence. We permitted the learned counsel to point out to us any infirmity in the prosecution case arising from the evidence, which, according to him, has escaped the notice of the High Court. Nothing at all was brought out by him to justify interference on our part.
The 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