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 Review Petition No. 11‑R of 1978, decided on 7th August 1978.
(On review from the order of the Court, dated 20‑9‑1977 in Petition No. 23‑R of 1977).
Art. 188‑Review‑High Court having excluded possibility of false implication of accused petitioner convicting them and Supreme Court by majority of its opinion accepting conclusion of High Court and dismissing petition for leave to appeal‑Petitioners seeking to reopen case, as though it were an appeal, by recourse to appraisal of evidence, held, beyond realm of review jurisdiction.‑[Review].
Ashraf v. The Crown P L D 1956 F C 86 ; Rehmat v. The State P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 109; Machia v. The State P L D 1976 S C 695 and Shahzado v. The State P L D 1977 S C 413 ref.
Zafar Mahmood, Senior Advocate, Mujeebur Rehman, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 7th August 1978.
‑The petitioners seek review of the order of this Court dated 20th of September, 1977, by which Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 23‑R of 1977 was dismissed on the ground that the majority opinion did not advert to the quality of the corroboration necessary to bring home the guilt to the petitioners.
Elucidating his stand the learned counsel further submitted that the injuries suffered by the four deceased, Dilawar Khan and one Rakhima Jan, a neighbour, could not furnish material to establish that more than three shots were fired. In this connection the learned counsel invited our attention to the minority opinion in which a counter view was taken that only three shots were fired and that too from the gun with which the crime empties bad matched; and that the injuries did not establish the firing of more than three shots. In support of his contention that the injuries could not lend corroboration to partisan evidence, the learned counsel relied on Ashraf v. The Crown (P L D 1956 F C 86), Rehmat v. The State (P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 109), Machia v. The State (P L D 1976 S C 695) and Shahzado v. The State (P L D 1977 S C 413).
We may observe that the trial Court believed the testimony of Dilawar Khan and Muhammad Hayat after applying the rule of caution and so did the High Court which further held that the part assigned to the petitioners was corroborated by the injuries sustained by the deceased and others ; and that having regard to the number of shots fired, the participation of the petitioners was consistent with it. The High Court also rejected the plea that only one gun was used and that too by the deceased Muhammad Hayat. Having excluded the possibility of false implication, the High Court proceeded to convict the petitioners. The majority opinion accepted the conclusion of the High Court and dismissed the petition. The petitioners now seek to reopen the case as if it was in appeal by recourse to the appraisal of evidence as essentially corroboration is a matter which is interwoven with it. This is beyond the realm of review jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we see no merit in this petition and dismiss it.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer