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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 52 of 1984, decided on 14th October, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑12‑1983 in Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 1982 and Murder Reference No. 8 of 1983).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Petition for leave to appeal time‑barred‑‑Explanation for condonation of delay neither cogent nor sufficient‑‑Petition dismissed as time‑barred.
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment‑‑ Fighting between sectarian groups‑‑Leave to appeal sought on basis of a written compromise between parties whereby complainant side had forgiven accused side to put an end to continuous process of vendetta and to avoid further bloodshed‑‑Petition being time‑barred, no benefit could be granted to accused on merits‑‑Observations, however, made for Government to pass appropriate orders on mercy petition so as to stop further bloodshed.
Birjees Nagi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th October, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 6‑12‑1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby while maintaining the petitioner's conviction under section 302, P.P.C. the sentence of death awarded to him was reduced to life imprisonment.
This petition is time‑barred. The explanation for delay offered in the application for condonation thereof is neither cogent nor sufficient. Although, learned counsel addressed arguments on merits yet we would in the circumstances of this case prefer dismissing the petition as time‑barred.
Learned counsel brought to our notice the fact that in this case an unfortunate occurrence took place between two sectarian groups: one, Shiah and the other Sunni and the finding of the learned Courts below is that there was a free fight between the two sides. One person on the complainant side lost his life while several persons were injured on both‑ sides. Subsequently one more person was killed on the other side. This process in vendetta might have continued further but for a compromise affect between the parties. It is in writing and is placed on record wherein the complainant side had forgiven the accused side. He, therefore, requested that appropriate orders may be passed on the basis of the compromise so as to save the parties from further bloodshed.
We are unable to give any benefit to the accused in so far as the merits of the case are concerned and the petition stands already dismissed.
However, we deem it a fit and proper case to observe that on mercy application to be made by the petitioners the Government might pass such orders on the basis of the compromise as may be appropriate for stopping further bloodshed between the two sectarian groups.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer