Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302, 34

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 23rd July 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 1965). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34-Murder-Witness Evidence-Each accused named and identified as participant in crime by a number of witnesses including some disinterested persons Contention that some witnesses did not name some of accused persons, held, not of much consequence, in circumstance. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860),  S. 302/34-Murder Sentence-Accused perpetrating diabolical crime of roasting a. man alive.-Mere age cannot be an extenuating circumstance-High Court's action in maintaining conviction of accused for trans portation for life and not thinking fit to issue rule for enhancement of sentence, held, surprising. Date of hearing : 19th June 1970. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The 17 petitioners in this case were tried on charges under sections 147, 148, 302/34 and 436/34 of the Penal Code. Except petitioner No. 1 the rest were all convicted under section 147 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each. The petitioner No. 1 alone was convicted under section 148 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were further convicted under section 302/34 and sentenced to transportation for life each. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 5 to 13 were convicted under section 436/34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each. The petitioner No. 1 was also convicted under section 325 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction of the petitioner No. 1 under section 148, but maintained all the other convictions and sentences. The petitioner No. 1 was convicted under section 147 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. They have now come up for special leave to appeal and the main contention advanced on their behalf is that the High Court has not applied its independent mind to the facts of the case nor made its own independent assessment of the evidence against the petitioners. The case against the petitioners was that on the. 17th of April…