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. K‑28 of 1969, decided on 7th January 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 11th August 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1967).
, Ss. 307 & 366 read with Ss. 149 & 452‑Abduction‑Accused F along with 5 others charged and con victed for committing house trespass and forcibly taking away a married woman by show of force‑Abducted woman naming only F as having entered house and forcibly lifted and carried her away other accused having been with accused F, common object of all, held, was to commit house trespass in order to forcibly take away married woman‑All accused not only justifiably convicted by Courts below but also leniently dealt with and held, should have been convicted under S. 366/307/149, P. P. C.‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Samandar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th January 1970.
‑The petitioners were tried for offences under sections 452/149, 307/149 and 366/149, P. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, Sukkur. They were convicted on the 12th April 1967, under section 452/149, P. P. C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Their sentence was upheld by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1967 by order dated the 11th August 1969.
The case of the prosecution against them is that the peti tioners, out of whom, two were armed with lathis and one with pistol, entered the house of Sultan in village Khan Goth and forcibly carried away Mst. Beeban, the wife of Sultan, on the 7th December 1965 at Somani time. It is alleged that Mst. Beeban raised alarm, which attracted P. W. Macha, brother‑in‑law of Mst. Beeban and some other villagers including P. W. Ayub. They chased the petitioners. Fazal, one of the petitioners, fired towards them with pistol, which hit P. W. Ayub in his leg. The chase was given up and the petitioners took away Mst. Beeban in a jeep which was parked on the road at some distance from the house of Ayub. They took her to Murid Minor from where they got down from jeep and took away Mst. Beeban with them. Later on, on the information of P. W. Muhammad Siddiq, driver of the jeep, the police was able to arrest the petitioners.
The conviction of the petitioners is based on the oral testimony of Mst. Beeban, P. Ws. Macha, Ayub, and driver Muhammad Siddiq. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
It will be noticed that most of the prosecution witnesses, in the present case, have been won over by the petitioners as the parties have patched up their differences. So far as the abduction of Mst. Beeban is concerned, the witnesses failed to identify, the petitioners. It was in these circumstances that the petitioners were acquitted of the charges under section 366 read with section 149 and section 307 read with section 149, P. P. C. So far as the forcible entry of the petitioners in the house of Sultan is concerned, it is supported on the evidence of Mst. Beeban and Muhammad Siddiq, driver.
Mr. Samandar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that Mst. Beeban had stated that it was only petitioner Fazal who had entered her house and forcibly lifted and carried her out whereas the other petitioners had not entered the house at all. This may be so but there is evidence that the common object of all' the petitioners was to commit house trespass in order to forcibly take away Mst. Beeban. The other accused persons were also with Fazal. In these circumstances, A the conviction of the petitioners is fully justified.
After going through the evidence on the record, it appears to us that the petitioners' case has been leniently considered by the Courts below. They should have also been convicted under sections 366 and 307, P. P. C. read with section 149, P. P. C. We do not consider this a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition 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