Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SARDARR VS Respondent: THE CROWNHonorable Justice SHAHAB DINRiasat Ali Khan,A. R. Changer
1969 P Cr
1969 P Cr. L J 1158
[Supreme Court]
Present : Muhammad Munir, C. J., A. S. M. Akram, M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius and Muhammad Sharif, JJ
SARDARR‑Appellant
versus
THE CROWN‑Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1954, decided on 4th October 1954.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated the 22nd January 1954, in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 1953).
Appeal to Supreme Court‑Appreciation of evidence‑Sound reasons given by High Court for relying on evidence‑No inter ference by Supreme Court.
Riasat Ali Khan, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Amjad Hussain, Attorney for Appellant.
A. R. Changer, Advocate‑General of the Punjab (C. M. Sharif, Advocate Federal Court with him) instructed by Ijaz All, Attorney for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 4th October 1954.
JUDGMENT
SHAHAB DIN, J.‑This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore whereby the conviction or the murder of one Hukam Chand alias Din Muhammad and the sentence of death imposed on the appellant Sardara by the Sessions Judge of Sargodha were confirmed and his appeal to the High Court was dismissed.
Din Muhammad, who was a Hindu convert to Islam was living at Bhera on the ground floor of a house, the upstairs of which was occupied by Masood Hussain (P. W. 3). Close to that building lived Muhammad Rafiq (P. W. 4) another refugee, and in the same neighbourhood, Rafi‑ud‑Din (P. W. 5) also lived. The case for the prosecution was that at about 3 a.m. on the 12th February 1953, hearing Din Muhammad raise an alarm these witnesses rushed to him and found him lying injured. He told them that the appellant had caused the injuries. As his condition was serious, he was removed to the Civil Hospital where the Medical Officer (P. W. 1) examined him at about 5‑20 a.m. and finding his condition bad, recorded his statement which was to the effect that the appellant had stayed with him that night and ran away after injuring him with a knife. Din Muhammad died at 6 a.m. There were six injuries on him, one of which was grievous and death was caused by shock and hemorrhage resulting from that injury which, in the opinion of the doctor, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The other injuries though incised were simple in nature.
The rest of the evidence on which the High Court based its conclusion was (1) that the appellant when arrested on the 13th February 1953, led the police to a bush near a canal bank from where a knife was recovered on which stains of human blood were found, and (2) that the appellant had on him an incised injury on the back of the right hand and abrasions on the face, neck and chest, which in the opinion of the doctor, might have been caused, the incised injury with a sharp‑edged weapon and the other injuries with human nails.
The appellant denied the charge and stated that he had encroached on the deceased's land and, therefore, he was falsely implicated by the deceased. He also said that the knife was not recovered at his instance and that the injuries found on him were due to his coming into contact with thorns while falling from a Kikar tree. But the evidence of the doctor rules out the possibility of the injuries of the appellant having been so caused.
The learned Judges accepted the evidence relating to the dying declarations made by the deceased and held that the version in those statements was strongly corroborated by the recovery of the knife and the minor injuries found on the appellant. It was faintly suggested by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the evidence of the recovery of the knife was misread, but he was not able to substantiate this point. His main criticism was that this part of the case should not have been believed as the evidence of two of the four witnesses to the recovery was discrepant. Along with the knife were found three pieces of cloth which are described in the memo. of recovery as having been washed. It was argued that if the appellant had buried n, these articles after washing the clothes he would have washed the knife also, and that, therefore, these articles could not have been secreted by him. But these points relate only to the assessment of the weight of evidence, and the learned Judges after considering them, have given sound reasons for believing this part of the case. There is no such ground in this case as could justify interference by this Court. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.