| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1972 SLG 246 1972 SLD 246 1972 SCMR 391 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 139 of 1972, decision dated: 25th October 1972
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND ANWARUL HAQ, J.
Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 139 of 1972, decision dated: 25th October 1972
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND ANWARUL HAQ, J.
Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
GHULAM MOHAMMAD
VS
THE STATE--Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLI of 1860), S. .107-Attempt to murder-Accused not availing of opportunity of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses-Trial Court nevertheless summoning eye-witnesses to be put to cross-examination but declining to summon Medical Officer and Investigating Officer presumably because their evidence had no direct bearing on guilt or innocence of accused-Prosecution witnesses could be subjected to cross-examination only once-Accused has no right to recall such witnesses after opportunity given but not availed of-Case, held, not one of prejudice caused to accused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307-Attempt to murder-Sentence-A matter primarily for trial Courts or Courts acting in appeal or revision-Supreme Court would not ordinarily impose its own assessment of appropriate punishment unless sentence against law or contrary to sound judicial principles. ORDER ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 31st May 1972, whereby he has dismissed in limine a revision petition filed by the petitioner, Ghulam Mohammad, against his conviction and sentence under section 307, P. P. C. for the attempted murder of one Mali Khan. He was tried along with two other persons, named Ghulam Hassan and Azizullah, who were also convicted by the trial Court, but acquitted in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali. The sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, besides a fine of Rs.500, was reduced in appeal to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentence of fine was maintained. Leave to appeal is sought on the following grounds;---- (a) No opportunity was allowed by the trial Court to cross-examine two important prosecution witnesses, viz., the Medical expert and the Investigating Officer, thus, causing great prejudice to the petitioner ;. (b) The evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below ; (c) In any case, the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment is much too excessive in relation to the nature of the injuries caused to the complainant. After hearing the learned…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492