Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 1985, decided on 1st April, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 325/34‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Trial Court attending to' relevant evidence on record and applying its conscious mind to facts and circumstances‑‑Cogent reasons given in support of conclusion arrived at‑‑Radiologist not produced to prove nature of injuries‑‑Judgment of Trial Court found well‑reasoned‑‑Strong and exceptional grounds, held, would be required to interfere with judgment of acquittal‑peal dismissed in circumstances.
Masood Mirza for Appellant.
Ch. Imtiaz for the State.
Malik Abdul Sattar for acquitted accused.
Date of hearing: 1st April, 1986.
The facts giving rise to Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.65 of 1984 which was converted into Criminal Appeal No.654 of 1985 are that Muhammad Bakhsh petitioner had filed a complaint under section 325/34, P.P.C against Ahmad Nawaz and three others respondents Nos.2 to 5 on the allegations that they had caused grievous as well as simple injuries to his son Ghulam Haider with Soties. On the conclusion of trial, the appellants were acquitted of the charges by Magistrate First Class, Bhakkar, vide his order, dated 4‑10‑1984, hence this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondents have been acquitted of the charge without legal and factual justification. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have also examined the evidence on file and the judgment of the trial Court. I find that the learned trial Court has applied his conscious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He has attended to the relevant evidence on record. He has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by him. The reasons given by him find support from the material on the file. I further find that Radiologist has not been produced by the prosecution to prove the X‑Ray report pertaining to the injuries of Ghulam Haider. It is well‑settled that once an accused person is acquitted then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for setting aside the judgment of acquittal. In the case in hand, I do not see any cogent reasons to interfere with the well‑reasoned judgment of the acquittal of the respondents.
4. For what has been said above, the appeal is dismissed.
S. A. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer