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. 238 of 1981, decided on 17th November, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Appraisal of evidence in High Court being in full accord with well‑settled principles of law, leave to appeal refused.
Ali Ahmed Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th November, 1985.
‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 6‑4‑1981 upholding petitioners conviction and sentence under section 302/34, P.P.C. for which they were sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.
2. The two petitioners alongwith three co‑accused were tried under sections 302/149, 148 and 449.P.P.C. for having caused double murder of two brothers, Manzoor and Liaquat, during the night between 10th and 11th April, 1977 in their house. The motive for the murders stated is that. Akram, brother of the two deceased, developed illicit relationship with Mst. Nabho, wife of his employer, Bashir petitioner, and abducted her to some unknown place. Bashir approached Ghulam, father of Akram, through Panchayat, for restoration of his wife. Ghulam's attempt to search his son failed, and he, therefore, expressed his inability. It is said that Bashir and the other accused then threatened Ghulam with dire consequences and caused the murders of Manzoor and Liaquat, brothers of Akram to seek revenge.
3. It is said that on the fateful night while Manzoor and Liaquat were sleeping in the courtyard of their house alongwith other family members, the two petitioners came armed with hatchets alongwith three companions who were carrying Dangs. With the assistance of their companions the two petitioners killed both the deceased with their hatchets. The incident was witnessed by Ghulam and Mst. Maryam respectively the father and mother of the two deceased and others. In upholding the guilt of the petitioners learned Judges of the Division Bench who heard the case relied upon the testimony of the parents of the deceased, holding that they were the natural witnesses and in the normal routine expected to sleep on their house at night time.
4. Mr. Ali Ahmed Awan, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, submits that implicit reliance should not have been placed on the two eye‑witnesses as they have not been believed in respect to the companions of the petitioners.
5. We find no substance in this submission for the learned Judges of the High Court have given the benefit of doubt to the co‑accused out of abundant caution. This is what they have observed in this behalf
"While we are satisfied that the presence of Ghulam and Mst. Maryam P.W. at the time of occurrence and in particular that of Mst. Maryam and are also satisfied that it is quite possible that all the appellants may in fact to be the real culprits, yet by way of abundant caution we would like to eliminate the risk of the net having been thrown more widely."
Since the appraisal of the evidence made by the learned Judges in the accord with well‑settled principles of law, we find no substance in the plea advanced in support of this petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.
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