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. 231 and 235 of 1980, decided on 3rd June, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑3‑1980 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 279 and 323 of 1978) .
‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/148/149‑‑Conviction‑ Interested eye‑witnesses‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence sought on ground that eye‑witnesses, even though injured, were involved in pending criminal case instituted at instance of deceased, therefore, they should not have been relied upon‑‑Eye‑witnesses, though interested in prosecution of petitioners were injured in same occurrence‑‑Testimony of such eye‑witnesses further supported by facts and circumstances including number of injuries and number of accused involved‑‑Courts below having believed eye‑witnesses regarding petitioners, it was therefore, not a fit case for re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149‑‑Conviction‑ Delay in lodging F. I. R.‑‑Plea that case was registered against petitioners after deliberations, not sustained, because, keeping in view relevant distance, F.I.R. was not delayed‑‑Petitioners' names appearing in F.I.R., there was no danger of their having been falsely implicated due to any so‑called deliberations‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Plea that interested eye‑witnesses, even though injured, should not have been relied upon, repelled‑‑Courts below having believed eye‑witnesses regarding petitioners and their testimony being supported by facts and circumstances including number of injuries and number of accused involved, held, it was not a fit case for re‑appraisal of evidence by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Arif Jan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 231 of 1980).
Malik Muhammad Qasim, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 235 of 1980) .
Nemo for the State (in both the Petitions).
Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgment, dated 24th March, 1980, of the Lahore High Court; whereby in a case of murder the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life of Dana, Ahmad and Gama petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 231 of 1980, and Bahadur, Manak, Ahmad and Amir petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 235 of 1980 were upheld. 3hera son of Ghulam who had been convicted by the trial Court was, however, acquitted. Earlier the trial Court had acquitted Shera son of Ahmad, Gama and Arif. The convict petitioners besides life imprisonment have been also sentenced to fine of Rs.2,000 each under section 302/149, P . P . C . , two years' R.I. under section 148 , P . P . C . , 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 each under section 307/149, P.P.C. They have also been ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2,000 each.
According to the prosecution the motive for the occurrence was that Samand deceased had beaten Dana petitioner 10/11 months prior to the occurrence in this case. A prosecution was lauched against Samand for that occurrence, and he and his four brothers‑in‑law were facing trial in that case. It is stated that the accused persons came to the 'Behk' of Samand deceased and launched a concentrated attack on him as a result of which he died and four eye‑witnesses received a large number of injuries. Karam Ali, Sardara, Falak Sher and Allah Yar, they are stated to be brothers‑in‑law of Samand. It appears that it was a retaliatory attack on the witnesses who were prosecuting the case against Dana and others. Dana, Gama and Bahadur petitioners were armed with guns while Ahmad son of Dana, Ahmad son of Mutalli, Amir and Manak were armed with Sotas. None of the accused is injured, while the complainant side including the deceased suffered more than 40 injuries.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, have sought re‑appraisal of the evidence on the ground that the eye‑witnesses even though injured, were involved in the pending criminal case instituted at the instance of Samand, therefore, they should not have been relied upon; and that the case was registered against the petitioners after some deliberations.
It is true that the eye‑witnesses had some interest in the prosecution of the petitioners. But as found by the Courts below they have been injured in the same occurrence. Their testimony is further supported by the facts and circumstances including the number of injuries and the number of the accused involved. Two Courts having believed the eye‑witnesses regarding the petitioners, it is not a fit easel for re‑appraisal of their evidence by this Court.
Regarding deliberations it is admitted by the learned counsel that the F.I.R. keeping in view the relevant distance was not delayed. The petitioners' names appearing in the F.I.R., therefore, there is no danger of their having been falsely implicated due to any so‑caller: deliberations.
After hearing the learned counsel, we do not consider it a fit case for re‑appraisal of the evidence. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused in both the petitions and they are dismissed.
M . I . Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer