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.303 of 19 0, decided on 22nd October, 1984.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑4‑1980, passed in Criminal Appeal No.858 of 1978).
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Appeal against acquittal from charge under 5.302 and reduction in sentence‑‑High Court in view of evidence available on record, justified in altering conviction to one under S. 304, Part I, P.P.C. and reducing sentence‑ Supreme Court declined interference and leave to appeal refused.
Aftab lqbal Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Mian Nusratullah,
Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1984.
.‑‑Muhammad Akram complainant has filed this petition for leave 'to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29‑4‑1980, acquitting Ghulam Hussain respondent of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. and reducing his sentence.
2. The respondent was tried for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf deceased and convicted under section 302, P.P.C. for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000. On appeal the High Court altered his conviction to one under section 304‑I and at the same time reduced his sentence to that already undergone by him.
The petitioner seeks conviction of the respondent under section 302, P.P.C. and enhancement of his sentence.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. We feel that in view of the evidence on the record the learned High Court was justified in convicting him under section 304‑I, P.P.C. and reducing his sentence. We are of the view that for the reasons given in par&. 7 of the impugned judgment the learned High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. and convicting him under section 304‑1, P.P.C., and reducing his sentence. We, therefore, do not consider it a fit case for interference. The petition is consequently dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer