Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FATEH MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: KARAM ILAHIHonorable Justice HAMOODUR RAHMANBarkat Ali Saleemi,Abdus Samad Hashmi,Nemo
1969 P Cr
1969 P Cr. L J 267
[Supreme Court]
Present : Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Sajjad Ahmad and Abdus Sattar, JJ
FATEH MUHAMMAD-Petitioner
Versus
KARAM ILAHI AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 38 of 1968, decided on 11th October 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th December 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 1967).
Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3) and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302--Acquillal of accused by High Court- Special leave to appeal against acquittal refused by Supreme Court where grounds raised related merely to appreciation of evidence.
Muhammad Jafar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.
Ijaz Ali, Attorney Supreme Court for the State.
Date of hearing : 11th October 1968.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The High Court has on appeal and reference set aside the conviction anti sentence of death awarded to Karam Ilahi, respondent, by the trial Judge for murder of Mir Afsar. The learned Judges found that delay in reporting the occurrence to the police indicated that no one had seen the murder, that the presence of Baza, Muhammad Sadiq and Mst. Hakam Jan, wife of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the occurrence was doubtful and that no implicit reliance could be placed on their testimony as they were not only related to the deceased, but were inimical to the respondent. It was further pointed out that while the post mortem examination revealed four incised injuries to the deceased, the eye-witnesses mentioned only one hatchet blow given by the respondent to the deceased after he had fallen in a kassi.
The grounds raised in support of the petition for leave to appeal go to appreciation of evidence for which we see no warrant as there is no departure from any established principle or rule of law in the appraisement of evidence by the learned Judges in the High Court.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.