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 No. 72‑R of 1983, decided on 26th October, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 19th June, 1983 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in Cr. A. No. 12,89/80).
----Art. 185 (3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Appreciation of evidence‑Nothing available to show as to why testimony of witness be discarded‑Infirmities in evidence pointed out in consequential and Courts below holding witness to be a credible one‑Supreme Court, in absence of any violation of principles of appraisal of evidence, held, could not differ from appreciation of evidence by Courts below Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Sadiq Muhammad Waraich, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 26th October, 1983.
The petitioner herein stands convicted for the murder of Altaf Hussain, his first cousin, on a trivial dispute such as big refusal to remove the plants sown alongwith wall as their watering was likely to damage the wall of the house of the deceased. The parties lived in houses which were contiguous, and the incident took place in broad daylight in a street outside the courtyard of the house of Mst. Sufaidan Bibi, the complainant, and it was alleged that the petitioner had fired at the deceased killing him at the spot at Chhoti Deeger Vella on 12th of June, 1979, as a sequel to this dispute. The F. I. R. was promptly lodged at 7.00 p.m. In the F. I. R. two persons were mentioned having witnessed the incident. They were Khan Nawab (P. W. 7) and Abdul Aziz Khan Nawab was disbelieved while Abdul Aziz was abandoned. The conviction now rests solely on the testimony of Mst. Sufaidan.
It is urged that because of some infirmities, the testimony of Mst. Sufaidan should not be accepted, but we see no reason to discard it as nothing has been brought to our notice as to why she could not have witness ed the incident. The infirmities being inconsequential, the Courts below have held her to be a credible witness. The matter is one of appreciation of evidence, and there is no reason for us to differ from it in the absence of any violation of the principles of appraisal of evidence. It is a cage of belief of a witness, and while giving weight to it the Courts below have considered the pros and cons of the aspect of her evidence.
Accordingly, the petition has no merit and is dismissed.
M. Z.M. Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer