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 for Special Leave to Appeal No. 239 of 1980, decided on 9th August, 1984.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29‑3‑1980, passed in Crl. Appeal No. 877 of 1978).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.325‑‑Appeal against acquittal of charge under 5.325, P.P.C.‑‑Interested testimony lacking corrboration‑‑Supreme Court finding no reason to interfere‑‑Leave to appeal refused
Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 9th August, 1984.
.‑‑Barkat Ali petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of Umra respondent of offence under section 325, P.P.C. He was tried alongwith 5 others including Mansha. Mansha was acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate but the remaining 5 were convicted under section 325/148. P.P.C. Under the former offence they were sentenced to 5 years each. On appeal the High Court acquitted all of them of the charge under section 148, P.P.C. It also acquitted Umra respondent of the charge under section 325, P.P.C. but dismissed the appeal of the remaining 4 co‑accused, with respect to that charge.
Hence the present petition against the acquittal of Umra respondent of the charge under section 325, P.P.C.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment. We notice that the High Court held that the eye‑witnesses in the case were admittedly interested but it maintained the conviction of 4 co‑accused on the ground that there was sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the eye‑witnesses qua them, by way of the medical evidence and the motive.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that it was proved on the record that Umra respondent, too, had sufficient motive to join in the commission of the offence, which would be used as corroboration of the testimony of the eye‑witnesses against him. But when asked to indicate any portion of the evidence of the record supporting this contention, he was unable to do so. We do not, therefore, find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment acquitting Umra respondent.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.
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