Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 106/11 of 1983, decided on 8th February, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 2‑11‑1983 in Criminal Revision 630 of 1982).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/49‑‑Hurt‑‑Prosecution case against accused established by evidence on record‑‑Judgment and order of High Court found to be unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Raja Azizuddin Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali for Petitioners.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th February, 1984.

The petitioners were tried by a learned Magistrate, with section 30 powers and were convicted and sentenced to 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 4,000 each under section 307/149, P.P.C., in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for one year each. They were also found guilty and sentenced to R.I. for year each under section 148, P.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, vide judgment dated 29‑5‑1982. An appeal was filed by the convicts while Rab Nawaz, complainant had also filed criminal revision for the enhancement of the sentence of the convict but both were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Khushab vide order dated 1‑9‑1982. Thereafter a revision petition was filed in the Lahore High Court which was heard by a learned Single Judge who altered the conviction of the convicts from 3071149 to 324/149, P.P.C. and their sentences were reduced to what they had already undergone, vide the impugned judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the conviction recorded by the Courts below is against the principles laid down by this Court for maintaining and upholding the conviction of persons in such cases whereas the appraisal of evidence done by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court is not in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court; that the provisions of section 148, P . P . C . were not attracted in the circumstances of the present case. He further contended that the delay of 16 hours has not been satis factorily accounted for and as such grave doubt is cast upon the prosecution case; the case was a fabricated by the complainant in order to avenge a long‑standing feud between the convict /petitioners and the complainant.

3. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that there is evidence on record of Rab Nawaz complainant supported by Sher Afzal, P.W. 4 and Ata Muhammad P.W.5, the later being a witness having no relationship with the parties. We have also observed that the occurrence took place, according to the prosecution, at about 5 p.m. in the area of village Pul Jhongewela lying at a distance of 12 miles from P.S. Nowshera, District Sarpodha. The petitioners had, according to the doctor, pellet wounds and witness Ata Muhammad also sustained in pellet injury. The doctor who examine; the complainant found a gun‑shot wound " x x skin deep on the junction of lower and upper chin while Ata Muhammad was found to have a gun‑shot wound " x 1/8" x muscle deep on the back of upper and left thigh and another similar wound 1i" x 1/8" x muscle deep 1 below and medial to respective wound. We find the argument that the said wounds could be self‑inflicted to he untenable. Regarding the delay, it has been stated that the complainant while proceeding to the police station, preferred, out of fear of the assailants so visit, first, the hospital and then he waited until down, to go to lodge the report. Thus we find that the delay is not of the nature which would cast any doubt on the entire case. It is also admitted by the accused that earlier the complainant Rab Nawaz had been charged for chopping off the ear of Khaliq Dad. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is, consequently, dismissed.

S. Q. 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.