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. 19‑R and 20‑R of 1985, decided on 16th December, 1985.
(On appeal from the Judgment, dated 3‑2‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1074 of 1980 and Criminal Revision No. 948 of 1980).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑Testimony of two interested eye‑witnesses lacking proper corroboration‑‑Presence of another eye‑witness considered doubtful and his testimony excluded on grounds of 'propriety and safety'‑‑Counsel unable to point out any error of law or violation of any settled principle of appreciation of evidence which could have led to miscarriage of justice‑‑Petitions dismissed.
Sh. Zafar Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th December, 1985.
These are two petitions for leave to appeal directed against the judgment, dated 3‑2‑1985 passed by the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1074 of 1980 and Criminal Revision No. 948 of 1980, whereby the appeal filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against their conviction for tire murder of Muhammad Khan deceased under section 302, P.P.C. wherein the former was sentenced to death and the latter sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali was accepted and they were ordered to be set at liberty. The private revision (Criminal Revision No. 948 of 1980) seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded to Shah Jehan, respondent No. 2 (from life imprisonment to death) was, therefore, automatically dismissed.
The facts, which form the background, are that on 9‑2‑1978 at Jhikki Degarwela the complainant (Ata Muhammad) alongwith his uncle Muhammad Khan (deceased) went out of his house for purchasing household articles. However, when they had reached near the tea shop of Faiz Ali in the Main Bazar, Kundian, the two accused, namely, Muhammad Farooq and Shah Jehan (respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein), who were armed with pistols, suddenly appeared from behind and after raising a Lalkara both of them fired at Muhammad Khan, who fell down after receiving injuries on the back and the left thigh.
The occurrence was witnessed besides the complainant (Ata Muhammad P.W.8) by Muhammad, P.W.9, and Muhammad Siddiq, P.W.10 and some others.
Muhammad Khan deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital, Kundian, where he died on account of the injuries sustained at the hands of the above‑named two accused. Both of them were accordingly, tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali. They were held guilty of murder and the learned trial Judge convicted both of them under section 302, P.P.C. Muhammad Farooq (respondent No.1) was sentenced to death plus a fine of ds.2,000 (or in default one year's R.I.) and Shah Jehan (respondent No. 2) to life imprisonment plus a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to undergo one year further R.I.
The respondents appealed against their conviction. A private revision was also filed by the present petitioner for enhancement of Shah Jehan's sentence from life imprisonment to death. The case was also referred by the learned trial Court for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on respondent No.l.
The High Court considered all the three matters together and recorded a well‑considered judgment. It found, in sum, that Ata Muhammad, P.W.8 and Muhammad P.W.9 (the two alleged eye‑witnesses were interested witnesses and their testimony required corroboration but no proper corroboration was forthcoming. As regards the so‑called 3rd eye‑witness, Muhammad Siddiq, his presence at the spot was considered doubtful. In this connection, it was observed that he was not named in the First Information Report (Exh. P.B.) made by Ata Muhammad, P W.8 and that it appeared that he (Muhammad Siddiq) was introduced as an eye‑witness to bolster up the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, his testimony was excluded on the grounds of 'propriety and safety'. In the result both the respondents were found entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed to question the above order of acquittal of the respondents.
We have heard Sh. Zafar Mahmood, Advocate in support of these petitions. He has not been able to point any error of law or violation of any settled principle of appreciation of evidence by the High Court which could have led to any miscarriage of justice. These petitions must, therefore, fail and are dismissed hereby.
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