Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: STATE VS Respondent: ZAMARRUD BEGUM
1988 S C M R 632
1988 S C M R 632
Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
THE STATE through A.-G. Sind- -Petitioner
versus
Mst. ZAMARRUD BEGUM and another--Respondents
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.20-K of 1987, decided on 12th January, 1988.
(From the judgment of the Sind High Court, dated 8th February, 1987 passed in Cr.A. No.181/1985).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---S.302/34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Petition for leave to appeal against acquittal-,- High Court holding that incident had occurred suddenly, there was no previous enmity between accused and deceased and even according to first information report no case was made out of any pre-concert or common intention, case against accused had not been established and prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon for convicting accused on constructive liability- Finding of High Court based on appreciation of evidence and no question of law raised in petition--Petition for leave to appeal not granted.
S. Murtaza Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Saeed Khan Ghory, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th January, 1988
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--According to the prosecution story, the co-accused Abdul Jabbar had caused knife injury to Abdul Razzak resulting in his death. The accused pleaded not guilty at the trial, but were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi under section 302/ 34, P . P . C . and sentenced to 10 years' R.I. each. On appeal to the High Court, the respondents were acquitted of the charge and their conviction was set aside as per impugned judgment. The State has now brought this petition for leave to appeal from the impugned judgment of the High Court.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court. It was Abdul Jabbar deceased, who had taken out Chhuri from the fold of his pant and attacked the deceased Abdul Razzak. The role assigned to the present respondents was that they had caught hold of the deceased. The learned High Court, on appreciation of evidence, camel to hold that the incident had occurred suddenly and there was no previous enmity between the accused and the deceased and even according to F .I. R. , no case was made out of any pre-concert or common intention between Abdul Jabbar and the respondents. On such appraisal of evidence, it was held by the learned High Court that the case against the respondents had not been established and the prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon for convicting the respondents on the constructive liability.
3. The judgment of the learned High Court is based on appreciation of evidence and no question of law arises in the Petition, which is, dismissed.
M . Y . H . /S-109/ S Petition dismissed.