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. 41 and 59 of 1982, decided on 17th November, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench, dated 11‑1‑1982 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 24/1980 and Murder Reference No. 11/1980).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Conviction‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Prosecution relying on testimony of close relations‑‑Material discrepancy in evidence having gone unnoticed‑‑Acquittal of co‑accused and plea of false implication‑ Leave to appeal granted for re‑appraisal of evidence which was considered necessary in circumstances.
Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.41).
Ch. Imtiaz Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 59).
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th November, 1985.
‑This order will dispose of Cr. P.S.L.A. No. 41 of 1982 and Cr. P .S.L.A. No. 59 of 1982 which arise out of the same order of the learned Lahore High Court, dated 11‑1‑1982.
The first petition seeks leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners 1 and 3 (petitioner No.2 having since died) and the second petition has been made by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence. The petitioners alongwith deceased petitioner Muhammad Shafi and three others, namely, Khushi Muhammad, Pir Bakhsh and Atta Muhammad (acquitted by the trial Court) were charged of the offence of murder of one Muhammad Din. On trial they were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced to death with fine of Rs.5,000. The petitioners appeal against their conviction failed before the High Court but the sentence of death was converted to life imprisonment and the fine was enhanced to Rs.30,000 each.
3. The prosecution examined in all five witnesses in support of the case. The said eye‑witnesses were Ghulam Muhammad complainant and father of the deceased, Shah Muhammad and Ghulam Rasool brothers of the deceased and Ahmad Din uncle of the deceased. Another witness Sadiq was declared hostile. The death was caused to the deceased as a result of Sota blows.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that apart from the fact that the eye‑witnesses were inter‑related there was another discrepancy of material nature which had gone unnoticed in the case. The learned counsel referred to the F.I.R. according to which the deceased was taken to the hospital by the complainant alongwith other witnesses. He then invited our attention to the statement of Dr. Capt. Khurshid Ahmad Rana, Medical Officer (P.W.8) who in his cross‑examination stated that the body was brought to the hospital by Chishtian police and further stated that no relative of the deceased was present when he had been so brought.
5. The argument of the learned counsel in short was that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case and the testimony of the close relatives was not trustworthy. Lastly, it was contended that the case of three acquitted accused was not different from that of the petitioners.
6. In view of the above contentions, re‑appraisal of evidence seems necessary and leave is accordingly granted. Since we have granted leave in this matter, we would grant leave in the other connected petition as well.
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