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 Review Petition No. 15 in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1985, decided on 2nd June, 1986.
Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑
‑‑‑O. XXVI, R. 1‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Review petition‑ Complainant seeking review of Supreme Court judgment whereby sentence of accused was reduced from death to imprisonment for life‑‑Allegation against accused was found to be totally false and of such a nature as to give cause of grievance against deceased, which reason was sufficient for reducing sentence of accused‑‑State also not supporting review of judgment‑‑Review petition dismissed.
Q.M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Raja M. Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
M.A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1986.
.‑‑Sardar Muhammad petitioner has sought review of this Court's judgment, dated 30‑4‑1985,whereby sentence of Muhammad Akbar was reduced from death to imprisonment for life, granting him the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.
2. The ground urged by the petitioner's counsel is that the State was not heard when the matter was finally disposed of.
3. Office refused to entertain the review petition as the counsel who had argued that case had not filed the review petition. However, since the State had not been heard and the complainant was not a party at that stage, we permitted the office to entertain the review petition, and issued notice to the State.
It has come up for hearing today.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant) and the learned State counsel as well as the counsel for the respondents, and reconsidered the impugned judgment recorded by us on 30‑4‑1985.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that one ground which weighed with this Court in reducing the sentence of Muhammad Akbar respondent was that he had suffered 6 months in jail as a result of the allegation levelled against him. He submitted that this was an incorrect information supplied to this Court.
6. In reply counsel for the respondent‑accused submitted that the custody in jail was 6 days and that probably 6 months were recorded due to typographical error. He took us through the statement of P.W. 9 at page 13 of the Printed Paper Book, where he stated during his cross‑examination, which reads as follows:‑
" ..I learnt that the accused were arrested for murder of Sardar Bi. The accused were let free after the post‑mortem report ...."
According to this report was received by the police after 6 days. However, even if this ground is ignored by us altogether, the second ground namely that the allegation made by the deceased against the accused was subsequently found to be totally false. This is mentioned in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment. The allegation was, indeed, of such a nature as to give cause of grievance against the deceased. This reason by itself was sufficient for reducing the sentence of the accused‑respondent.
It may be mentioned that the learned State counsel has not supported the review petition.
In view of what has been observed above the review petition is dismissed as having no merit.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer