Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petitions Nos. 94‑R and 95‑R

of 1984, decided on 5th April, 1986.

(On appeal from judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 1981 and Murder Reference No.99 of 1981, dated 20‑11‑1984).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Evidence produced against accused by prosecution disinterested and eye‑witnesses not shown to have enmity against accused‑‑Testimony of such witnesses corroborated by medical evidence inasmuch as injuries found on person of deceased were such as could be caused by firearms carried by accused‑‑Counsel for accused urging no legal contention but merely wanting Court to reappraise evidence on record and to revere finding of facts reached by Courts below‑‑Perusal of judgment of Courts below not warranting such exercise‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Reduction of sentence‑‑Complainant unable to show that reasons recorded by High Court for awarding lesser sentence to accused were 'not tenable‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Curt with order of High Court reducing sentence.

Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Dastgir Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant (in Criminal Petition No.94‑R of 1984).

Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No.95‑R of 1984).

Nemo for Respondent (in Criminal Petition No. 95‑R of 1984).

Date of hearing: 5th April, 1986.

.‑‑This order will dispose of (i) Criminal Petition No.94‑R of 1984 filed by the accused /convicts namely, (1) Muhammad Khan, ('2) Sabir Hussain sons of Talib Hussain, and (3) Khan Beg son of Fateh Muhammad against their convictions and sentences and (ii) Criminal Petition No.9a‑11 of 1484 filed by Nazar Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain for enhancement of the sentence of the afore mentioned accused/ respondents, who are three respondents in the said petition.

2. Muhammad Khan, Sabir Hussain and Khan Beg petitioners in Criminal Petition No.94‑R of 1984, were accused alongwith some other, of the double murder of Muhammad Nishan and Muhammad Sharif (Foot Constable) and were sent up for trial. The evidence produced against them by the prosecution consists mainly, of the testimony of three eye‑witnesses, one of whom at least, namely, Haq Nawaz (P.W.15) is absolutely disinterested. Even the other two eye‑witnesses have not been shown to have any hostility against the accused. Their testimony is corroborated by medical evidence, inasmuch as the injuries found on the person of deceased were such as could be caused by firearms carried by the three accused /petitioners.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. He has not urged any legal contention. He only wants us to reappraise the evidence on the record and to reverse findings of facts reached by Courts below. Having gone through the judgments of the Courts below we are not inclined to enter into that exercise. Criminal Petition No.94‑R of 1984 is, therefore, dismissed.

4. As for Criminal Petition No.95‑R of 1984, we have heard counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court reducing the sentence of the (in the said petition). The learned counsel has not been able to show that the reasons recorded by the High Court for awarding the lesser sentences to the respondents are not tenable. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and enhance of sentences awarded to the respondents.

5. This Petition No. 95‑R of 1984 is, therefore, also dismissed.

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.