Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAUKAT ALI VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ASLAM
1988 S C M R 1137
1988 S C M R 1137
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑Respondents
Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 128 and 130 of 1986, decided on 2nd March, 1988.
(Against the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 11‑3‑1986 passed in Criminal Revision No.47 of 1984 and Criminal Appeal No.11 of 1984).
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑
‑‑‑Ss.302 & 304, Part I & Part II‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Sentence, enhancement of‑‑Accused convicted under 5.304, Part II, P.P.C. and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment‑ Contention that accused should have been convicted under S .304, Part I, P.P.C. accepted but sentence of 10 years being adequate in circumstances of case, grant of leave merely to consider whether conviction should be altered from S.304, Part II, P.P.C. to 5.304, Part I, P.P.C. refused.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑
‑‑‑S.302/34‑‑Petition against acquittal‑‑Appraisal of evidence‑‑Accused of murder acquitted by Trial Court‑‑High Court's order upholding acquittal, challenged‑‑No flaw in appraisal of evidence by High Court pointed out‑‑Reasons recorded for upholding accused's acquittal being sound, did not call for any interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Q.M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr.Ps.S.L.A. Nos.128 and 130 of 1986).
Nemo for Respondent.
Rao M.Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State (in Cr.P.S.L.A. No.130 of 1986).
Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1988.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This order will dispose of (i) Criminal PSLA No.128 of 1986 filed by Shaukat Ali petitioner against Muhammad Aslam and (ii) Criminal PSLA No.130/86 filed by Shaukat Ali against Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Akram, Wali Muhammad, Abdul Shakoor and Muhammad Sharif, co‑accused (respondents in that petition).
2. All the respondents in the two cases were tried for the murder of Ali Muhammad. The learned trial Court acquitted five accused persons (who are respondents in Crl. P. No. 130 of 1986), but convicted Muhammad Aslam (respondent No.1 in Cr1.P.No.128 of 86) under section 304‑II and sentenced him to .10 years' R.I . Shaukat Ali filed two revision petitions before the High Court one for enhancement of the sentence of Muhammad Aslam and the other against acquittal of the five co‑accused of Muhammad Aslam. Both the revisions were dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment, dated 11‑3‑1986. Hence the present petitions before this Court.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the plea of the defence is accepted, Muhammad Aslam respondent should have been convicted under section 304‑I, P.P.C., and not under section 304‑II , P . P. C . That is correct, but we are of the view that the sentence (10 years' R.I.) awarded to Muhammad Aslam respondent is adequate in the circumstances of the case. It will, therefore, not serve any purpose to grant leave merely to consider whether the conviction of the respondent in Cr.P. No.128 of 1986 should be altered from section 304‑II, P.P.C. to that under section 304‑I, P.P.C. We, therefore, dismiss Cr.P.S.L.A. No. 128 of 1986 as being without any merit.
4. We now take up Crl. PSLA No.130 of 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any flaw in appraisal of the evidence by the High Court. All the reasons recorded by for upholding the acquittal of the 5 co‑accused‑respondents in this petition are sound. As such it does not call for any interference by this petition. This petition too, is therefore, dismissed.
M. I. /S‑136/S Petitions dismissed.