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.123 of 1980, decided on 15th January, 1984.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 5‑2‑1979, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 689/77 and Criminal Revision No. 363/78).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302 read. with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898); S.417‑‑Murder‑‑Acquittal‑‑Appeal against ‑‑No flaw in impugned judgment of High Court acquitting accused respondent pointed out nor High Court shown to have misread or ignored any portion of prosecution evidence‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Ghulam Murtaza Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbul Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
Sh. Ejaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th January, 1984.
‑‑ Anwar Gill petitioner seeks leave to (appeal against the acquittal' of Muhammad Jehangir respondent, of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. by the Lahore High Curt. Lahore vide its judgment, dated 5‑2‑1979.
2. The facts, briefly, are that Muhammad Jehangir respondent was tried for having murdered a young Christian girl named Mst. Shahnaz Tanvir on 4‑10‑1975, by causing her as many as 15 knife injuries on various parts of her body, in a field outside the Sialkot City.
The prosecution relied on 3 eye‑witnesses in support of its case, namely Muhammad Khalil (P.W.7), Anwar Gill brother of the deceased (P.W.8) and Sadiq Masih (P.W.12) (brother of Sultan P.W. who is brother‑in‑‑law of the deceased). The accused was arrested two days later. At the time of his arrest he is alleged to have been carrying the blood‑stained knife (P.8) with him which was taken into possession.
The motive of the offence is stated to be that the accused misbehaved with the deceased, of which she complained to her brother later, when she took up a job with a Travel Agency, the accused/ respondent objected' to it. The learned Trial Court disbelieved the motive as well as the testimony of Anwar Gill (P.W.8) and Sadiq Masih (P.W.12), but relied on the testimony of Muhammad Khalil (Khalil Akbar) P.W.7 and convicted the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000.
The respondent filed an appeal before the High Court against his conviction which was accepted by it, and the respondent was acquitted.
Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at length and gone through the impugned judgment as well as relevant portions of the record. The High Court has rightly disbelieved the third eye‑witness namely Muhammad Khalil P.W.7 and also the recovery of the knife (P.8). As such there was no evidence on which the respondent's conviction could be maintained. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any flaw in the impugned judgment nor was he able to show that the learned High Court had either misread or ignored any portion of the prosecution evidence.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no force.
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