Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

NASRULLAH versus THE STATE


Pakistan Penal Code Sections 252525 and Exper 323 Expert Evidence Radiologist did not examine the X-ray of the injured witness, accused, could not be convicted under section 2525, PPC under section 25 accused3 Sentenced, PPC convicted under section 323 [Proof]

1985 P Cr. L J 825(1)

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Munir Rican, J

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 2 others‑‑Petitioners

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Revision No.30 of 1985, heard on 30th January, 1985.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑

‑‑‑Ss.325 & 323‑‑Expert evidence‑‑Radiologist not examined to prove X‑Ray of injured witness‑‑Accused, held, could not be convicted under S.325, P.P.C.‑‑Conviction of accused under S.325, P.P.C. set aside and convicted under section 323, P.P.C. in circumstances.‑‑[Evidence].

Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf for Petitioners.

Arshad Khan for the State.

Date of hering: 30th January, 1985.

JUDGMENT

The facts giving rise to this revision are that Muhammad Ramzan petitioner and 2 others were tried by Magistrate Ist Class, Chiniot under sections 325 and 452/34, P.P.C. for causing grievous injury to Muhammad Tariq after having committed criminal house trespass. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate acquitted the co accused, but convicted the appellant under section 325/34, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang while maintaining the conviction under section 325/34, P.P.C. reduced the sentence from 2 years to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000, in default thereof 3 months' R.I. Hence this revision.

2. On 29‑1‑1985, after hearing the learned counsel I had admitted the petition to consider the nature of offence committed by the petitioner. I find that the Radiologist was not examined "to prove the X‑Ray of the' injured witness. That being the position, I am of the view that the trial Court could not have convicted the petitioner for causing grievous injury under section 325/34, P.P.C. Resultantly, the conviction under section 325, P. P. C. is set aside instead the petitioner is convicted under section 323, P.P.C. and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof 1 months' R.I. With this modificalian, the petition is dismissed.

M. A. K. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
patent advocate from Amangarh lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.