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 No. 221 of 1981, decided on 22nd October, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 4‑3‑1981 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 1979).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 35‑‑Sentence‑‑Consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and seven years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to petitioners under Ss. 302 & 307, P.P.C., respectively‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that awarding of sentence like that was not in consonance with provisions of S. 35, Cr.P.C.
Javed Shaikh v. State 1985 S C M R 153 rel.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307‑ Conviction‑ Eye‑witnesses account supported by independent corroboration‑ Prosecution version corroborated by recovery of crime weapon disinterested recovery witnesses and by medical evidence‑‑Contention raised before High Court adequately answered and evidence well discussed in impugned judgment‑‑Findings recorded by High Court not open to interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1986.
The petitioners were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur of offences under sections 302/34,P.P.C. and 307/34, P.P.C. for the murder of Siraj and for attempting the murder of Dullah (PW) respectively. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default of payment of fine for further six months' rigorous imprisonment on the first charge and to seven years rigorous imprisonment on the second count. The petitioners filed appeal in the Lahore High Court against their convictions which was dismissed as per impugned judgment. None of the two judgments mentions that the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The occurrence in the case had taken place on 14‑12‑1975 at about 1.00 p.m. in Bazar Khudian and the F.I R. was recorded on the complaint of Khushi on the same day at 2.30 p.m. According to the complainant he met Inayat on the day of the occurrence while he was returning to his house. Inayat picked up quarrel with him on the way and on his shouts the other three petitioners and acquitted accused Wassan and Makhan joined him. The complainant also raised alarm which attracted Siraj deceased, Dullah (PW). Hakam (not produced) and Bashir (not produced). Bashir inflicted stick blows to Siraj who fell down. Rehmat and Barkat also caused stick blows to the deceased. Dullah tried to rescue but was attacked and injured by Bashir, Rehmat and Inayat petitioners. Siraj and Dullah fell unconscious on the spot. As more people were attracted to the scene of occurrence the petitioners made good their escape. Siraj and Dullah were taken to the hospital. Yakoob A.S.I. (P.W.13) recorded the statement of Khushi near the hospital whereupon the F . I . R . was later recorded.
3. According to the post‑mortem report the deceased had suffered three lacerated wounds, an abraded contusion on the head and injuries on left index finger and front of the nose. The injuries were ante‑mortem and caused by blunt weapon. Death was due to coma, on account of injuries Nos. 1 and 2 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dullah (P.W.) and Barkat petitioner were also examined by the Medical Officers and both of them were found to have suffered simple injuries caused by blunt weapon.
4. The petitioners filed appeal against their convictions which was dismissed as per impugned judgment. The entire evidence in the case was re-appreciated by the learned High Court. The eye‑witness account furnished by Khushi complainant and Dullah injured witness, was believed and blood‑stained stick recovered from Rehmat was found to provide independent corroboration against the said accused. The recovery witness of stick was held to be neither related to the complainant party nor hostile to the petitioners, and was believed. The prosecution version was corroborated by the medical evidence.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the complainant Khushi was an interested witness, his testimony required independent corroboration and so also that of Dullah. It was also asserted that injury on Barkat also required explanation. These contentions were raised before the learned High Court and have been adequately answered in the impugned judgment. The evidence in the case has been well discussed and the learned counsel was unable to persuade us to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned High Court.
6. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners have been awarded life imprisonment (i e. 25 years) under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and further sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under section 307. P.P.C.. which sentences, in the absence of any order that the same will run concurrently are, therefore, to run consecutively. This was not in consonance with the provisions of section 35, Cr.P. C. Reference is invited to Javed Shaikh v. State 1985 S C M R 153 in support of his contention.
The above contention requires examination. Leave is accordingly granted on this short question only. The appeal will be heard on the present record which may be fixed at an early date.
M. I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer