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 Revision No. 445 of 1986, decided on 27th April, 1987.
---S. 302/ 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 Revision against acquittal--Occurrence taking place in dark--Trial Court finding witnesses to be giving exaggerated version, having not seen occurrence founder being coming to conclusion after due appraisal of evidence-- Judgment of acquittal, held, could be upset in exceptional cases where there was glaring mistake ether of law or of fact or reasoning was neither judicial nor sound--Case not falling within aforesaid exceptions, impugned judgment not interfered in circumstances.
Ch. Shaukat Ali Saqab for Petitioner.
Muhammad Walayat son of Mehr Dad, resident of Madharianwala, Hafizabad, District Gujranwala has filed this petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, dated 22-4-1986, whereby Aman Ullah and his brother Muhammad Fazil were acquitted.
On 1-12-1984, a case under section 302/34 was registered against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith Muhammad Anwar (who was murdered during the trial) For the murder of Nazir at Police Station Hafizabad, District Gujranwala. report was lodged by Muhammad Walayat which was recorded by Ahmad Ali A.S.I. The alleged occurrence took place at about evening near Mosque in t e Abaci of village Madrianwala which is at a distance of 5 miles from the Police Station Hafizabad. The two respondents were armed with carbines and fatal shot was attributed to Aman Ullah.
The motive was that five months prior to the occurrence, Nazir deceased abducted Mst.Azra Bibi, sister of Aman Ullah. A case was registered against him. He was on bail.
The prosecution examined Muhammad Walayat and Nazar Muhammad as eye-witnesses. The other evidence consisted of recovery of carbine and the post-mortem report of the deceased.
2. Respondents/accused denied the allegations. They pleaded not guilty. They declined to produce any evidence in defence.
Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that the learned trial Court erred in law in discarding the ocular evidence. The eye-witnessed had no motive to falsely implicate the respondents. They weie natural witnesses. Their testimony was corroborated by the recovery and the medical evidence.
It was further contended that the impugned judgment resulted in miscarriage of justice.
3. I have considered these submissions. The trial Court found that the witnesses gave an exaggerated version. They did not see the occurrence. They were interested. Tie occurrence took place in the dark.
The learned trial Court did not believe the evidence of recovery.
For the foregoing reasons the respondents were given the benefit of doubt.
4. I think that the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion, after due appraisal of the relevant evidence.
5. Judgment of acquittal is to be upset in exceptional cases where there is glaring mistake either of law or of fact or the reasoning is neither judicial nor sound. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring his case within anyone of the aforesaid exceptions.
I don't think that the impugned judgment as such calls for interference. The revision is dismissed in limine.
S.A./M-209/L Acquittal maintained.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer