Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD BOOTA VS Respondent: KHUSHI MUHAMMAD
1988 S C M R 355
1988 S C M R 355
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD BOOTA--Petitioner
versus
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others--Respondents
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.437 of 1982, decided on 12th December, 1987.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 14-12-1982 passed in Criminal Revision No.53 of 1982).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---S. 302/34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Petition against acquittal-- Trial Court accepting plea of self-defence and acquitting accused charged under S.302/34, P.P.C.--Judgment of High Court very brief and sketchy--Acquittal maintained without adverting to plea of self-defence--Order impugned--Supreme Court found that Trial Court in its elaborate judgment had given cogent reasons for accepting plea of self-defence and had acquitted accused on that plea--Not being a fit case for grant of leave to appeal merely for reappraisal of evidence for considering correctness or otherwise of plea of self-defence, petition dismissed.
Dr.Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Wahid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemat Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.5.
Date of hearing: 12th December, 1987.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Muhammad Boota petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 14-12-1982 whereby it upheld the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari acquitting all the respondents in a case inter alia under section 302/34, PPC .
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. The main plea raised by the learned counsel for petitioner was that the judgment of the High Court was very brief and sketchy and that it had not even adverted to plea of self-defence, which had been accepted as correct by the trial Court. We, therefore, perused the judgment of the learned trial Court to see what reasons had prevailed with it for accepting the plea of self-defence and to consider whether a different conclusion could be reached even if the matter was reheard and .the evidence on the record was reappraised, by the High Court for determining the correctness or otherwise of the trial Courts view on tile plea of self-defence.
3. We are of the view that the learned trial Court has recorded an elaborate judgment and has given cogent reasons for accepting the plea of self-defence and acquitting the respondents. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for grant of leave merely for reappraisal of evidence for considering the correctness or otherwise of the plea of defence.
Leave is consequently refused.
M.I/M-284/S Petition dismissed.