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.603 of 1985, decided on 28th January, 1987.
‑‑‑S.439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Revision against acquittal‑‑ Eye‑witnesses interested‑‑Long‑standing litigation between parties, admitted‑‑Statements of witnesses full of material improvements and contradictions‑‑Complainant at one stage of investigation implicating another person for murder‑‑During investigation complainant admitting not to have seen occurrence, but claiming to be eye‑witness at trial‑ Findings of Trial Court found to be supported by evidence‑ Uncorroborated evidence of interested witnesses, held, could not be sufficient for conviction and no exception could be taken to order of acquittal in circumstances.
Izhar‑ul‑Haq for Petitioner.
This petition for revision by Channan Din petitioner is directed against the judgment, dated 24‑7‑1984 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, whereby he acquitted the respondents of the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The complainant's version was that on 8‑3‑1982 at 9 p.m. he alongwith his brother Muhammad Sharif and his sons Amanat Ali deceased and Muhammad Munir P.W. was going towards his Chah for guarding his crops and cattle. When the deceased reached near his land, both the respondents emerged from the cut branches surrounding that land. Muhammad Nawaz respondent was armed with a Dang and Ghulam Jilani respondent with a gun. Muhammad Nawaz exhorted Ghulam Jilani to fire at the deceased, upon which he fired at him hitting him in the abdomen, as a result of which he died in Civil Hospital, Pasrur, before any medical aid could be rendered.
3. At the trial Channan Din, his son Muhammad Munir and his brother Muhammad Sharif supported the prosecution version. The learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt. The reasons which weighed with him for recording a finding of acquittal were that the eye‑witnesses were interested, their statements were full of material improvements and contradictions and during the investigation the complainant, at one stage, implicated one Allah Ditta for this murder. Having gone through the record, I find that these findings have the support of evidence. Channan Din complainant in his statement before the A . S. P. , with which he was duly confronted, had stated that he had not seen the occurrence and that Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Ashiq was the murderer of his son. At the trial he stated that Muhammad Sharif was also going with him to his Chah when he saw the occurrence, but in this statement before the police, with which he was duly confronted, he had stated that his brother Muhammad Sharif came to the spot on hearing the alarm after the deceased had fallen injured. It is admitted that there is long‑standing litigation between the parties and in that view of the matter uncorroborated evidence of the interested witnesses was not sufficient for conviction, therefore, no exception can be taken to the order of acquittal.
4. There is no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed.
S. A./C‑1/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer