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 Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos.192 and 223 of 1985, decided on 9th June, 1985.
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 353 & 351‑‑Assault‑ Contention that conviction under S. 353, P.P.C. was not maintainable as allegations against accused in that respect did not fall within four corners of said section, because no force was alleged to have been used by accused against complainant‑‑Contention being misconceived in view of definition of "assault" in S. 351, P.P.C.‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 363‑‑Contention that prosecution case rested on sole testimony of complainant which could not be relied upon for maintaining accused's conviction without independent corroboration‑‑No material defect in testimony of said witness pointed out which could induce Court to accept contention‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Zakiuddin Pal, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 9th June, 1985.
This order will dispose of Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 192/85 and Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 223/85, filed by Safdar Ali Wahla and Abdul Majid, respectively, against the same judgment of the High Court, dismissing their criminal appeals.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length and have also gone through the impugned judgment.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that their convictions under section 353, P.P.C. are not maintainable as the allegations against them in that respect do not fall within the four corners of the said section, because no force is alleged to have been used by the accused/ petitioners' against the complainant.
After having considered we find that the contention is misconceived in view of the definition of assault in section 351, P.P C.
4. It was next contended that the prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of the complainant (Saeeduddin, P.W. 3) which cannot be relied upon for maintaining petitioners conviction without any independent corroboration.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have, however, not been able to point out any material defect in the testimony of the said witness which would induce us to accept the aforementioned contention.
Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
M.B.A. Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer