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. t;‑D of 1970, decided on 30th May 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 8th December 1969, in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1969).
(a) Evidence
‑Question of belief or disbelief of a witness‑No function of the Supreme Court.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
S. 439(1)‑Sentence, enhancement of‑Accused charged for having caused injuries to victim by gunshots‑Enhancement of sentence of one year under S. 326 and six months under S. 324 to 2 years and 11 years respectively, held, not only not illegal but lenient too‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal dismissed.
Md. Nurul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 30th May 1970.
The two petitioners in this case were tried along with 13 others on charges under sections 147, 148 arid 326, P. P. C. They were all convicted under section 147 and all, except these two petitioners, were sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment each. No separate sentences were imposed on these two petitioners for their convictions under section 147.
The petitioner, Shahadat Hossain, was further convicted under section 326 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year as also a fine of Rs. 300, in default further rigorous imprison ment for another three months. The petitioner, Rustam Molla, was further convicted under section 324 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.
These convictions and sentences were upheld, on appeal, by the learned Sessions Judge of Faridpur and they moved the High Court in revision. The High Court admitted the revision for regular hearing and also issued a suo motu rule for enhancement of the sentences of these two petitioners. The convictions under section 147, P. P. C., were set aside by the High Court, but the convictions of the petitioners under sections 326 and 324, P. P. C., were maintained and their sentences were enhanced to two years and li years respectively.
They now seek special leave to appeal, and it is contended on their behalf that their convictions have been wrongly maintained. According to the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition the Courts below had not considered the defence evidence adduced in the case nor given due weight to the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses which went in favour of the petitioners. It is urged that the evidence of two of the prosecu tion witnesses had actually cast a serious doubt on the whole prosecution case.
We are unable to accept any one of these contentions. An examination of both the trial Court judgment and the appellate Court judgment shows that defence evidence was considered. The appellate Court actually mentions that 7 defence witnesses were called but disbelieves the defence story, particularly with regard to the place of occurrence. It appears that one witness stated in cross‑examination that the occurrences took place at a place which was 5/6 Basis towards the south of the house of one, Khalique, and another witness stated that this Khaleque lived in a village, called Mangalpur which is about 15/16 Basis south east from the house of Nuruzzaman. These concessions were, however, not accepted by any one of the Courts below, because the defence version that the occurrence took place in the house of Khaleque did not receive any support from any other circumstance.
Indeed, even the two witnesses on whose evidence reliance is sought to be placed, had clearly stated is their examination‑in -chief that the incident took place in the house of Nuruzzaman, as alleged by the prosecution. The inference sought to be drawn by the learned, counsel appearing in support of the petition from two isolated statements of two different witnesses does not, therefore, discredit their evidence read as a whole or the evidence of the other witnesses who have given a consistent version. In any event, this is purely a question of belief or disbelief of a witness which is not the function of this Court.
It is lastly urged that the High Court was not right in enhancing the sentences. No illegality has, of course, been in committed by the High Court in imposing such enhanced sentences which, having regard to the facts of the case, are even now on the lenient side. The injuries that the petitioners are charged with having caused to the victims are by gunshots. In the circumstances, they are lucky that they were not charged under section 307, P. P. C., and have only escaped with rigorous imprisonment for two years and 1 years, respectively.
There is no substance in this petition which 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