Find a Lawyer

Criminal Review No. 5 of 1983 in Criminal Appeals No.41, 42 of 1982, decided on 29th November, 1983.

‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Review before Supreme Court‑‑Point urged in review not raised at time of hearing of appeal‑ supreme Court did not permit to urge such point at review stage.‑ [Review by Supreme Court].

Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court with M. A. Zaffar, advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

D. M. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Complainant. Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 29th November, 1983.

.‑‑ Jinda petitioner has filed the present Review Petition against the judgment of this Court, dated 24‑4‑1983, dismissing his appeal against his conviction in a murder case.

2. The facts giving rise to the case, stated very briefly, are that Jinda petitioner was tried alongwith Muhammad Khan, Muzaffar and 5 others for the murder of Fateh Khan and making murderous assault on Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.11) and Jehan (P.W.12). His 5 co‑accused were acquitted but he (Jinda) was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced, inter alia, to death, while Muhammad Khan and Muzaffar, though acquitted of the charge of murder, were convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced, inter alia, to 7 years' R.I. All three of them filed an appeal against their conviction and sentences which was dismissed by the High Court and the death sentence imposed on Jinda was confirmed.

Jinda petitioner applied for leave to appeal which was granted on 16‑8‑1981. The appeal was then heard on merits and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, the appeal was dismissed vide the impugned judgment, dated 24‑4‑1983. Jinda, petitioner, is still not satisfied and has filed the present Review Petition.

3. We have again heard his learned counsel at considerable length but he has not been able to make out any ground for interference with the impugned judgment. His main contention was that Jinda petitioner is the head of the family of the accused party and the most important person amongst them. According to him it is for this reason that the complainant party has attributed the fatal shot to him. He requested that this aspect of the matter needs reconsideration.

4. We however recall that this point was not raised at the time of the hearing of the appeal. We are, therefore, unable to permit the counsel to urge it at this stage. Consequently the Review Petition is dismissed.

5. It is, however, open to Jinda (petitioner), if so advised, to move the Executive through a mercy petition, and urge the above mentioned point therein.

M . Z . M . 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.