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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 348 of 1985, heard on 17th November, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore', dated the 16th June, 1985, in Criminal Revision No. 114 of 1972). '
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S. 302‑‑Leave to anneal grant of‑‑Reappraisal of evidence‑‑Petitioner tried under S. 302, P.P.C. given benefit of doubt and acquitted‑‑On revision, High Court ordered retrial of case after lapse of 14 years‑‑Plea raised that retrial was not warranted in facts and circumstances of case after lapse of inordinate delay‑‑Reappraisal of evidence considered necessary and leave to appeal granted.‑‑[Delay‑Evidence].
Khawaja Sarfraz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th November, 1985.
The petitioner was tried of an offence of murder of one, Ghulam Qadir, on 6‑1‑1971 allegedly over a dispute of land situated near the house. He was tried under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of Ghulam Qadir but was acquitted of the charge by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, on 21‑9‑1971. The learned Sessions Judge, on the appreciation of evidence, came to hold that he had some lurking doubts regarding the implication of the petitioner in the crime and, therefore, the latter was entitled to benefit of doubt. On a private revision filed by the complainant Khurshid Ahmad, the learned Judge in the High Court set aside the order of the trial Court and retrial of the case was ordered. The revision which was filed in 1972 was decided as per impugned judgment on 16‑6‑1985, that is, after the lapse of a period of about 14 years. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the retrial of the case was not warranted 'in the facts and circumstances of the case and that too after such an inordinate delay.
In our opinion, reappraisal of evidence seems to be necessary in this case. We would, therefore, grant leave. Further proceedings in the case shall remain stayed until the decision of the appeal.
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