Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NASIR VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice TANVIR AHMED KHANIbne Hassan,Nemo
2004 S C M R 212
2004 S C M R 212
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ
NASIR---Petitioner
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.490-L of 2002, decided on 10th December, 2002.
(On appeal from the order dated 6-2-2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2000 by the Lahore High Court, Lahore).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
---Ss.324/109/337-A(i)(ii)/337-F(ii)(vi)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Prosecution witnesses including the injured witness had proved the prosecution case to the hilt---Delay in registering the F.I.R. had been amply explained---Ocular testimony was totally in line with medical evidence---No illegality or misreading in the assessment of the prosecution evidence in returning the verdict of guilt was pointed out---High Court had already given concession to the accused by ordering his sentences to ' run concurrently instead of consecutively--- Impugned judgment did not deserve any interference---Leave to appeal was declined to accused accordingly.
Ibne Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State
Date of hearing: 10th December, 2002.
ORDER
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 6-2-2002 whereby Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, with some modification in sentences, earlier passed by the learned trial Magistrate through his judgment dated 26-7-2000.
2. Facts briefly are that F.I.R. No.88 dated 23-3-1996 was got registered at Police Station Sillan Wali of District Sargohda under sections 324/109/337-A(i)(ii)/337-F(ii)(vi), P.P.C. at the instance of Ahmad Sher son of Kameer. It was the case of the complainant that he alongwith his brother Muhammad Khan and Ahmad Sher son of Muhammad Khan were going towards the Dera of Muhammad Khan Dhudhi at 7-30 p.m. When they reached near Railway track, suddenly the petitioner appeared armed with a pistol and caused injuries to complainant's brother Muhammad Khan. The case was investigated and challan was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha against the petitioner and one Allah Rakha. The prosecution, in order to establish its case; examined seven witnesses. The petitioner when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied his participation. The learned trial Magistrate, after thrashing the entire evidence, acquitted the co-accused Allah Rakha and convicted the petitioner with different terms and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for causing injuries on the person of the said- Muhammad Khan, vide judgment dated 26-7-2000. The sentences on each count were ordered to run consecutively. The petitioner filed an appeal under section 408, Cr.P.C. against the said conviction and sentences awarded to him which has been dismissed. However, the sentences awarded to the petitioner have been ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the petitioner. Hence this petition.
2-A. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgments evidence brought on record. It is reflected from the perusal thereof is proved to the hilt by the testimony of Muhammad Khan injured witness alongwith Ahmad Sher son of Kameer (P.W.2) and Ahmad Sher son of Muhammad Khan P.W.3. The injured was examined by Dr. Abdul Ghani, Medical Officer, District Headquarter Hospital who found 10 injuries on his person caused by the petitioner with fire-arias
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or misreading in the assessment of the prosecution evidence in returning the verdict of guilt. The ocular account is totally in line with the medical evidence. The delay as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner has amply been explained by the prosecution. It would be appropriate to mention here that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has already given concession ' to the petitioner while ordering the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. It would be 'appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge in this regard which is in the following terms:--
"In the instant case the delay in the F.I.R. has been explained by the complainant because according to him after the receipt of so many injuries the injured was taken first to Civil Hospital, Sallanwali and then to Sargodha. The first anxiety of the complainant was to save the life of his brother. Name of the complainant is also mentioned in medico-legal report Exh.P.C. in the relevant column of said report so his presence is established. Muhammad Khan injured is the staff witness of the case. He has fully implicated the appellant in his statement having ten injuries caused by appellant with fire-arm and blunt weapon. I am not going to believe that the complainant and injured would leave or exonerate the actual culprits and would implicate the appellant falsely. Parties were known to each other. There was no question of mistaken identity. Appellant is the only accused in this case. He tried his level best to murder the injured Muhammad Khan but it was his good fortune that he survived. Three eye-witnesses have been produced by the prosecution. Statements of Ahmad Sher and Muhammad Khan injured are corroborated with each other. Ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence."
3-A. In view of what has been discussed and noticed above, we do not find any justification, to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave is refused.
N. H. Q./M-112/S Leave refused.