Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS Respondent: STATE
1987 S C M R 184
1987 S C M R 184
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 110 of 1983, decided on 29th October,1986.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 12‑2‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 1981).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Reappraisal of evidence on questions of fact‑‑Having gone through relevant portions of evidence and impugned judgment, case was not found fit for undertaking that exercise‑‑Petition dismissed.
M.B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ali Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 29th October, 1986.
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner, was tried alongwith Zulfiqar son of Muhammad Bakhsh, Waryam son of Maula Bakhsh, Haitam son of Pehlwan and Qaim son of Maula Bakhsh for the murder of Rustam Ali deceased.
The learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 24‑5‑1981 sentenced Muhammad lqbal, petitioner, to death with a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default of payment of fine to undergo one year R.I. Zulfiqar son of Muhammad Bakhsh was also sentenced to death by the trial Court. However, Waryam son of Maula Bakhsh, Haitam son of Pehlwan were sentenced to life imprisonment while Qaim son of Maula Bakhsh was acquitted. On appeal and reference to the High Court, Zulfiqar, Waryam and Haitam were acquitted but the conviction and sentence of Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner, was upheld. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and gone through the relevant portion of the evidence, as also the impugned judgment with his help. All that the petitioner's counsel seeks is the re‑appraisal of evidence on questions of fact.
Having considered his submission in the light of the evidence on record and the observations of the Courts below we do not consider this case to be a fit one for undertaking that exercise. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.