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 Appeal No. 122 of 1979, decided on 16th April, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 16th June, 1979 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 400 of 1979).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 326 & 109‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether evidence against appellant was of a quality to sustain his conviction on charge under S. 326, P.P.C. read with 5.109, P.P.C.
‑‑‑S. 326/109‑‑Appellant ascribed role of instigation resulting in grievous injuries‑‑Role of appellant consistently accepted by Courts below‑ Conviction resting on evidence which was accepted to establish guilt of co‑accused‑‑No error found in appraisal of evidence‑‑Conviction upheld.
‑‑S. 326/109‑‑Sentence‑‑Reduction of‑‑Prolonged litigation‑‑Conviction of appellant under S.326/109, P.P.C. maintained‑‑Supreme Court taking lenient view on account of litigation taking 9 years to end‑‑Sentence reduced to one already undergone but, tine and sentence in lieu thereof maintained.‑‑[Sentence].
Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th April, 1986.
‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the evidence against the appellant was of a quality to sustain his conviction on the charge under section 326, P.P.C. read with section 109, P. P. C
In the F.I.R. and the depositions of the witnesses, namely Khushi Muhammad P.W.5 and Rao Shamshad Ali P.W.6, the appellant has been ascribed the role of instigating the others to beat the complainant party, and, as a result of that instigation, Muhammad Anwar and Maqbool Ahmad had caused injuries to Muhammad Daud with sharp‑edged weapons such as a butcher's hatchet and a chopper. The complainant, according to the medical evidence, suffered four injuries out of which two were grievous .in nature.
The Courts below have consistently accepted the role ascribed to the appellant and have rested his conviction on evidence which has been accepted to establish the guilt of Muhammad Anwar and Maqbool Ahmad. In the absence of any error in its appraisal, we do not see evidence by the any reason to differ from that assessment of the Courts below.
Accordingly, we would maintain his conviction, but as the incident is an old one and it has taken almost nine years for the litigation to end, we would take a lenient view of his sentence and reduce it to that already undergone. However, we would maintain the fine and the sentence awarded in lieu thereof. Subject to this modification the appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is on bail, and his bail bonds shall stand discharged if the fine is paid. Else he should be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine.
M. I. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer