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. 18 of 1983, decided on 11th June, 1984.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 5‑7‑1982, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 1980).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 304 (I), 308 & 447 Murder‑Evidence‑Reappraisal‑No question of law raised‑Leave to appeal‑Held, cannot be granted merely for reappraisal of evidence.‑[Evidence].
Mian Ata‑ur‑Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of. hearing : 11th June, 1984.
.‑Sajawal Shah petitioner was tried along with 11 others under sections 148, 302/307/149, P. P. C. for forming an unlawful assembly and causing the murder of Saidan Shah (deceased) and making murderous assaults on Amir Shah, Gul Hussain Shah, Sadiq Shah and Masoom Shah, in furtherance of the common object of the said unlawful assembly. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum, however, acquitted 9 of the co‑accused but convicted Sajawal Shah, Qurban Shah and Inayat Shah. Sajawal Shah was convicted under sections 304(1), 308, P. P. C. and 447, P. P. C. Under section 304(1), P. P. C. he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000 (further 2 years' R. I. in default). Under section 308/34; P. P. C. he was sentenced to 5 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 3,000 (further one year's R. I. in default), and under section 447/34 he was sentenced to one month's R. I. The remaining two co‑accused were convicted under sections 308/34 and 447/34, P. P. C. They were sentenced under section 308/34, P. P. C. to 5 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 3,000 (further one year's R. I. in default) each and under section 447/34, P. P. C. one month's R. I. each.
On appeal the High Court acquitted the remaining two co‑accused (i.e. Qurban Shah and Inayat Shah) but maintained the conviction and sentence of Sajawal Shah petitioner. The latter has come to this Court against the said order through the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at length and gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his plea of self‑defence had been wrongly rejected. To show this he wanted us to reappraise the evidence. No question of law has been raised. We are afraid we do not consider it proper in this case to grant leave merely for reappraisal evidence.
3. The learned counsel then relied on a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in another case. In the first place, it is not proper to cite the judgment of a Sessions or Additional Sessions Judge before us. In any case the counsel has admitted that he had not cited this judgment before the High Court. He cannot, therefore, be permitted to refer 'this judgment.
With the above observation we dismiss the main petition alongwith the bail application.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer