Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RIAZ VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ASLAM
1988 S C M R 356
1988 S C M R 356
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD RIAZ--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others--Respondents
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.251 of 1985, decided on 14th December, 1987.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11-2-1985 passed in Criminal Appeal No.452 of 1982).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---Ss.302 & 304, Part I--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)- Petition against alteration of conviction and reduction in sentence--Plea that High Court had wrongly appraised evidence relating to defence version and erred in relying on statement of accused under 5.342, Cr.P.C., repelled--High Court having given cogent reasons for believing defence version, held, was justified in altering conviction from 5.302, P.P.C. to one under 5.304-I, P.P.C.--Leave to appeal refused.
Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate- on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1987.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Muhammad Aslam respondent was tried for the murder of Ijaz. He was convicted by the learned trial Court under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs.6,000. On appeal the High Court altered his conviction to one under section 304-I, P.P.C. and reduced his sentence from imprisonment for life to 10 years R.I. vide its judgment dated 11-2-1985.
Feeling aggrieved Muhammad Riaz petitioner has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the aforementioned judgment of the High Court.
2. On going through the impugned judgment we find that the learned High Court altered the conviction of the respondent in view of the plea of self-defence taken by him which was accepted as correct.
Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned High Court had wrongly appraised the evidence relating to the defence version and had erred in relying on the statement of the accused respondent under section 342, Cr.P.C.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment in the light of the aforementioned contentions and are unable to agree with the petitioner's counsel. The High Court has given cogent reasons for believing the defence version and was justified in altering the respondent's conviction from section 302, P.P.C. to one under section 304-I, P.P.C. Leave is therefore, refused.
M.I./M-285/S Petition dismissed.