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 No. 609 of 1980, decided on 21st June, 1982.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 29‑10‑1980, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 299/79).
‑‑ S. 302 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382‑B [Murder‑case]‑Reappraisal of evidence‑Petitioner in effect wishing Court to hold that no weight could be attached to ocular testimony and recovery witnesses and to reverse finding of fact arrived at by two Courts below‑Case, held, not fit for reappraisal of evidence but in circumstances of case petitioner deserved benefit of provisions of S. 382‑B of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 as prayed for.‑[Evidence].
Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, Advocate Supreme Court with M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan, A. A: G. for the State.
Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 21st June, 1982.
Muhammad Younas petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court dated 29‑10‑1978, dismissing his appeal in a murder case. He was accused of stabbing Bashir Ahmad to death with a chhura (P. 5) at about 10‑30 a. m. on 5‑2‑1978, in the area of Dulleyewala.
At the trial the prosecution relied on the testimony of the three eye witnesses, namely, Muhammad Hussain (P. W. 7), Khobaib Ahmad (P. W. 8) and Ahmad Din (P. W. 9); recovery of the blood‑stained chhura (P. 5) which was subsequently found to be stained with human blood; the medical evidence and the motive.
The accused pleaded innocence but did not produce any evidence in defence. The trial Court, however, relied on the prosecution evidence, convicted him under section 302, P. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court rejected his appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence vide the impugned judgment.
Fence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner only urged that the learned courts below had not correctly appreciated the evidence and erred in relying on the testimony of the eye‑witnesses who were related to the d2Ceased and inimical towards the accused and that the recovery of chhurra (P. 5), could not be relied upon in view of similar objections against the recovery witnesses. In fact he wanted us to hold that no weight can be attached to the ocular testimony and the recovery witnesses and reverse the finding of fact arrived at by the two courts below. He submitted next that the petitioner has not been given the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr. P. C. although, the petitioner had remained as an under‑trial prisoner for quite sometime.
4. We have considered the aforementioned contentions. We do not consider this to be a fit case for reappraisal of evidences but in the circum stances of this case, we feel, that, he is entitled to relief under section 382‑B, Cr. P. C. With this observation the petition is 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