Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNAWAR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: KHUSHI MUHAMMAD
1988 S C M R 362
1988 S C M R 362
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUNAWAR HUSSAIN--Petitioner
versus
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others--Respondents
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.173 of 1982, decided on 13th December, 1987.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28-3-1982 passed in Criminal Appeal No.955 of 1979).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
---Ss.302/34, 304, Part 1/34 &324--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal--Grant of--Appreciation of evidence- Petition against alteration in conviction and reduction in sentences- Defence plea relating to right of defence of person accepted by High Court--Supreme Court, on examination of evidence on record found that High Court was justified in accepting defence version--Leave to appeal refused.
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Malik Muhammad Yousif, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Date of hearing: 13th December, 1987.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Munawar Hussain petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-3-1982 whereby the conviction of Ghulam Rasool and Inayat respondent was altered from section 302/34, P.P.C. to one under section 304-1/34, P.P.C. and their sentences were reduced to 10 years R.I. each, while the conviction of Khushi Muhammad respondent was altered from section 302/ 34, P . P . C . to one under section-324, P.P.C. and his sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that already undergone by him.
2. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court had partially allowed the appeal of 3 respondents and made the above-noted alterations and modifications in their convictions and sentences because it believed the version of the incident put forward by the accused-respondents through Khushi Muhammad who pleaded the right of defence of the person of his wife who was being forcibly dragged by the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through relevant portions of the evidence on the record and the impugned judgment to urge that the aforementioned versions had been wrongly believed.
4. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we are not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and feel that the High Court was justified in accepting the said defence version. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition which is consequently dismissed.
M.I. /M-281/8 Petition dismissed.