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 Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 33‑P and 76‑R of 1985, decided on 26th January, 1986.
(Against the Judgment and order, dated 14‑5‑1985 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1986).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Misreading of evidence‑‑Contentions raised that evidence being convincing and free from taint, medical evidence could be used for corroborating it and site plan only for contradicting same‑‑View taken by High Court not in accord with law laid down by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether acquittal proceeded on well recognised principles of safe administration of criminal justice‑‑Bailable warrants against respondents, orders to be issued.
Bacha Said v. The State P L D 1978 S C 102; Yaqoob Shah v. The State P L D 1976 S C 53 and Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Yusuf and 2 others P L D 1976 S C 234ref.
K.G. Sabir, Asstt. A.‑G. N.‑W.F.P. instructed by Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (absent) (in Cr.P. 33‑P of 1985).
Nemo for Respondents (in Cr.P. 33‑P of 1985).
Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record (in Cr.P.76/R of 1985) for Petitioner. K.G. Sabir Asstt. A.‑G. N.‑W.F.P. with Nur Ahmad Khan Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for the State (in Cr.P.76/R of 1985).
Date of hearing: 26th January, 1986.
By two separate petitions; one by the complainant and the other by the State, leave to appeal is sought against the same judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 14th of May, 1985 whereby the criminal appeal of the two convict‑respondents was allowed and they were acquitted of the charges under section 302/34, P.P.C., and their conviction and sentence therefore, was set aside.
On the 19th of December, 1981 Sabz Ali was shot dead in village Kandar, Police Station Nowshera Kalan, District Peshawar. A case was registered against the two respondents and two others. The learned trial Court held the two respondents guilty convicted them under section 302/34, P.P.C. sentenced both to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 each or in default to undergo R.I. for two years. Their other two companions were acquitted.
On their appeal against conviction and sentence, the High Court found that the case against them was not free from doubt and acquitted them. The grounds on which their acquittal was recorded appear from the following conclusions drawn by the High Court:‑
"There is no doubt that the report of the occurrence has been made in this case with all the possible promptness. The ocular evidence too, to a greater extent has come from independent witnesses, in that none of the witnesses has any animosity with the appellants and, therefore, the chances of false implication is remote. In the F.I.R. and at the trial the appellants and the acquitted accused have been charged in very clear terms. The particulars of the weapons which the appellants and the acquitted accused were armed with at the relevant time and the role played by each of the appellants and the acquitted accused have also been specified with exactitude. Te trouble in this case, however, started when the medical evidence and the site plan was read in juxtaposition with the version of the occurrence given by the two eye‑witnesses."
The learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Peshawar, has urged that if the oral evidence is convincing and free from taint the medical evidence can be used for corroborating it and the site plan only for contradicting it. According to him, the view taken by the learned Judges in the High Court is not in accord with the law laid down by this Court in Bacha Said v. The State P L D 1978 S C 102; Yaqoob Shah v. The State P L D 1976 S C 53 and Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Yusuf and 2 others P L D 1976 S C 234.
We consider that the question whether the acquittal of the respondents proceeds on the well‑recognised principles for safe administration of criminal justice requires examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Bailable warrants of arrest in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount each shall issue against the two respondents returnable to the District Magistrate, Peshawar.
M.I . Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer