Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petitions Nos. 53‑R and 274 of 1985, decided on 6th April, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8‑4‑1985 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 1981/Murder Reference No. 49 of 1982).

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Contention raised by counsel for accused only amounting to a prayer for reappraisal of evidence but perusal of impugned judgment not warranting same‑‑Petition dismissed

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Sentence Petition by complainant for enhancement of sentence of accused‑‑Reasons recorded by High Court for awarding accused lesser sentence of imprisonment for life sound and valid‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Court.

Sardar Muhammad Ishaque Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Cr. P.53‑R of 1985).

Nemo for Respondents.

Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhter, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner (in Cr. P. 274 of 1985).

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 6th April, 1986.

‑‑This order will dispose of (1) Criminal Petition No.274/85 filed by namely, (i) Khaki Jan and (11) Fazal‑ur -Rehman against their conviction and sentence under section 302, P.P.C., and (2) Criminal Petition No.55‑R of 1985, filed by Muhammad Razzaq, Complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused /respondents i.e. Khaki Jan and Fazalur Rehman, for the murder of Iftikhar Ahmad (deceased) from imprisonment for life to one of death.

2. We have neard the learned counsel for the petitioners in each of the aforementioned petitions. The contention raised by' the learned counsel for the accused /convicts (petitioners in Cr. P.274/85) only amount to a prayer for reappraisal of evidence. After going through the impugned judgment we do not consider it a proper case for purpose. The said petition is, therefore, dismissed.

3. As far as Cr. Petition No.53‑R of 1985 filed by the Complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence of the accused/respondents, is concerned, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment we find that the reasons recorded by the High Court for awarding the, respondents, the lesser sentences of imprisonment for life, are sound and valid. We do not, therefore, consider it to be a fit case for interference. Consequently this Petition (Cr.P.No.53‑R of 1985) is also dismissed as being without any merits. '

M . Y . H . Petitions dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.