Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 91 of 1977, decided on 27th July 1978.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 4th April 1977, in Criminal Revision No. 1002 of 1976).

‑‑ S. 307/148/149‑‑‑Murder, attempt to‑Defence plea duly thrashed out by all Courts below and found to have no merit‑Medical evidence indicating infliction of injuries by types of weapons ascribed to accused and thereby, corroborating prosecution case of there being three assailants each having a different weapon‑No legal or factual error in judgments of all lower Courts shown so as to show their being vitiated by any of recognised principles of safer administration of justice in criminal matters and justifying interference by Supreme Court‑Petition dismissed.

Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Merajud Din Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for the State

Date of heating : 27th July 1978.

.‑(l) Jamal Din, (2) Munshi, and (3) Ali Muhammad petitioners were tried along with four ladies, namely (1) Mst. Mukhtaran, (2) Mo. Salamtey, (3) Mst. Rashidan, and (4) Mst. Sardaran and having been found guilty were convicted under section 307/148/149, P. P. C. by go Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate (with powers under section 30 of the Cr. P. C.) on 8‑9‑1976. The ladies were sentenced for imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 4,000 each. Jamal Din and Munshi petitioners were sentenced to two years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 4,000 each. Ali Muhammad was sentenced to four years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 4,000. Feeling aggrieved they all filed an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the appeal of the ladies and acquitted them but dismissed the appeal of the other accused holding them guilty under section 30'/34, P. P. C. They filed a revision petition being Criminal Revision No. 1002 ef 1976 but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 4‑4‑1977. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal.

2. The facts of the prosecution case, briefly are that the cattle head of the complainant were about to pass from the land of one Jamoon. The petitioners are tenants of that Jamoon. The petitioners resisted which led to a quarrel on the spot. Petitioner Jamal Din was armed with a dang, petitioner Munshi had a spear, and petitioner Ali Muhammad had a hatchet. They attacked and gave injuries with their respective weapons to Muhammad Shy (P. VN. 1) and Muhammad Aslam (P. W. 7). The former received 11 injuries with blunt and sharp‑edged weapons; one of the injuries was grievous. The latter similarly suffered 9 injuries out of which two were grievous. The prosecution case was supported by the ocular evidence of the injured persons and Muhammad Afzal (P. W. 4), Faqir Muhammad (P. W' 3) and Muhammad Ishaque (P. W. 6) The Courts below have accepted the testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses which stands corroborat ed by the medical evidence in so far as it shows that injuries were caused by the types of weapons ascribed to them and this supports, the prosecution case that there were three assailants. Petitioners Jamal Din and Ali Muhammad admitted their participation and took up the plea that they attacked in self‑defence of their persons and property. They produced Parvez (D. W. 1) in support of their plea. Jamal Din further pleaded that he was first given injury by the complainant but this version was rejected because the injury on Jamal Din was held to be of post‑occurrence period. Khushi Muhammad petitioner totally denied his participation in the occurrence.

3. Learned counsel has argued that the evidence of Parvez (D. W. 1) has not been taken note of by the Courts below therefore their judgments which failed to deal with defence version stand vitiated. The contention has no merit. The defence plea has duly been thrashed out by all the Court and found to have no merit. It was then argued that there was no corroboration regarding participation of Munshi petitioner. This again is not correct. As earlier mentioned the medical evidence indicates infliction of injuries by the types of weapons ascribed to the accused which fact corroborates the prosecution case that there were three assailants each having different weapon. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal or factual error in the judgments of all the Courts below to show that they are vitiated by any of the recognised principles of safer administration of justice in criminal matters so as to warrant our interference in these proceedings. The result is that this petition has no merit and is, dismissed.

Petition 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.