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 Nos. 4‑R and 42‑R of 1985, decided on 5th April, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 17‑3‑1985 in Criminal Appeal 181 of 1982 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal trial‑‑ Accused's counsel not raising any legal contention and only wanting a reappraisal of findings of facts arrived at by Courts below‑‑Case not fit for reappraisal of evidence‑‑Petition dismissed.
‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sentence‑‑Petition filed by complainant for enhancement of sentence of accused‑‑Reasons recorded by High Court for reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life valid and proper‑ Interference declined by Supreme Court.
Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Cr. P.40‑R/85).
Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P.42‑R/1985).
Nemo for Respondents (in both Crl. Petitions).
Date of hearing: 5th April, 1986.
This Order shall dispose of Cr.P. No.42‑R of 1985 filed by Muhammad Siddiq, accused /convict, and Cr. Petition No. 40‑R of 1985 filed by Muhammad Akram, Complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence of Mohammad Siddiq (respondent in the last mentioned petition).
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both petitions. The learned counsel for the accused/ respondent in Cr. Petition No.42‑R of 1985 has not raised any legal contention and only wants a reappraisal of the evidence on the record for the reversal of findings of facts arrived at by Courts below. After going through the impugned judgment and considering the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel we do not consider this to be a fit case for reappraisal of evidence. Cr. petition no.42‑R of 1985 is, therefore, dismissed.
3. As for Cr. Petition No.40‑R of 1985 filed, by Mohammad Akram, Complainant, for the enhancement of the sentences of Mohammad Siddiq, we find that the reasons recorded by the High Court for reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life are valid and proper. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for interference. This petition, too, is therefore, dismissed.
4. This dispose of both the petitions.
M. Y. H. . Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer