Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 46 of 1985, decided on 4th March, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 30th January, 1985, in Criminal Revision No.30 of 1985).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 323‑‑Conviction impugned‑‑Being a daytime occurrence, identity of assailant not doubted‑‑No sufficient motive to implicate petitioner instead of assailant‑‑Guilt having been squarely brought to petitioner, he was dealt with rather lightly‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.

Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 4th March, 1985.

Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30th January, 1985 dismissing his Criminal Revision (No.30 of 1985).

2. The fats giving rise to this petition are briefly, that Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner was tried alongwith two others by a 1st Class Magistrate under sections 325, 452/34, P.P.C. for causing injury to Muhammad Tariq, after having committed criminal trespass into his house.

3. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the two co‑accused but convicted Ramzan petitioner under section 325/34, P.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' R. I.

4. Ramzan filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, who maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to one year's R.I. and imposed fine of Rs.2,000, in default of payment of which he eras ordered to undergo another 3 months' R.I.

5. Ramzan petitioner then filed criminal revision in the High Court which altered his conviction from section 325 to one under section 323 P.P.C. and reduced his sentence of imprisonment to 6 months' R.I and also reduced the sentence of fine to Rs.1,000 in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further 11 months' R.I.

6. The petitioner has now moved this Court for grant of Leave to Appeal.

7. We have heard the petitioner's learned counsel at some length and have also gone through the impugned judgment. It was a day time occurrence. It cannot therefore be said that the injured person had not been able to see the person who had inflicted a Sota blow to him. Of course there was friction between the parties over the evacuation of a house belonging to the complainant, but this cannot be said to constitute sufficient motive to have induced Tariq complainant to spare the person who caused him the injury and, instead, implicate the petitioner.

8. We feel that guilt has been squarely brought to the petitioner and that he has already been dealt with rather lightly.

9. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.

M. I. 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.