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. 434 of 1982, decided on 8th February, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, in Cr. A. 154/82, dated 31st October, 1982).
---Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307 & 325 Attempt to murder‑Appeal against connection‑High Court found to have attended to all circumstances considered vital from defence point of view‑Appreciation of evidence including question of delay in F. I. R. found in accordance with accepted principles of criminal justice‑Leave to Appeal refused.
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 8th February, 1983.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 31‑10‑1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a, criminal appeal was only partly allowed.
Petitioner was convicted under section 307, P. P. C. for causing injuries to Muhammad Hussain, P. W. a boy of 16/17 years of age, with a knife 'and a‑ Sota. Nazir and Sabir, P. Ws. besides Muhammad Hussain had furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. Muhammad Hussain also gave the motive that the petitioner retaliated because he the injured, had rebutted his overtures for an illicit connection. There was also the recovery of Crime
The defence plea was of false implication because the younger brother of the petitioner bad earlier administered a beating to Muhammad Humain for his "irresponsible behavior towards and involving , the honour of their womenfolk.
The trial Court as also a learned single Judge in the High Court relying on the prosecution evidence found the petitioner guilty. The High Court, however, held that the offence. was one under‑ section 325 P. P. C. and Not under section 307 as found by the trial Court, accordingly the sentence was educed in appeal.
Learned counsel has questioned the, findings regarding motive dis interestedness of the eye‑witnesses and non-production of more reliable evidence regarding recovery. He has also criticised the complainant side's conduct in reporting the matter to the police after a long delay.
The learned single Judge in the High Court attended to all the circum stances which could be considered vital from the point of view of defence. The appreciation of evidence including‑the consideration of question of. Delay in F. I. R. are in accordance with accepted principles of criminal justice. We have not been able to differ with the same not even With regard to the sentence the last point urged by the learned counsel.
This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
S. Q. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer