| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1969 SLG 174 1969 SLD 174 1969 SCMR 14 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 214 of 1968, decision dated: 16th October 1968. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 29th April 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 852 of 1966)
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI AND ABDUS SATTAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 214 of 1968, decision dated: 16th October 1968. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 29th April 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 852 of 1966)
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI AND ABDUS SATTAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD
VS
GHAUS AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302-Acquittal-Contention that High Court acquitted accused ors purely speculative ground not supported by evidence-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider whether acquittal based on principle consistent with safe dispensation of criminal justice. Noor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner. Rustam Sidhwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Date of hearing : 16th October 1968. ORDER HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-The four respondents in this case were jointly tried and convicted under sections 302/34, 325/34 and 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the respondent Mohammad Nawaz was also convicted under section 13 (e) of the Arms Ordinance. They were sentenced to transportation for life under section 302/34, P. P. C. and to further terms of rigorous imprisonment on the other counts but the sentences were made to run concurrently. The convicted persons appealed against their convictions and the present petitioner also applied to the High Court for the enhancement of the sentences. The High Court allowed the appeals of the respondents, dismissed the application of the petitioner and acquitted all the respondents. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the High Court has not only misread the evidence but omitted to take into account certain evidence which went against the accused persons. It appears that the High Court was of the view that not only had the prosecution eye-witnesses who were sworn enemies of the accused suppressed the fact that the accused persons had also some injuries on their persons but had also been influenced by the plea of self-defence raised by the accused persons. It is contended that whilst it is true that two of the accused persons had between them 8 simple injuries it had not been noticed that on the complainant side one person had actually been killed and two others had been injured, that the number of injuries on the complainant side was much more and of a more grievous nature. If the story of the defence had been correct that the…
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