Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FATTA VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice ABDUS SATTARMalik Saeed Hassan,Nemo
1969 P Cr
1969 P Cr. L J 16
[Supreme Court]
Present : Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Abdus Sattar, JJ
FATTA AND OTHERS‑Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 140 of 1968, decided on 28th June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 28th March 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1967).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------S. 302‑Petition for special leave to appeal to Supreme Court against conviction‑Contention that eye‑witnesses disbelieved by trial Court as regards participation of some of accused in crime and so conviction could not be based on evidence of such witnesses without corroboration‑Question, held, one of appreciation of evidence‑Special leave refused by Supreme Court.
Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Raja Abdul Razzaque, Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 28th June 1968.
ORDER
ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑--The petitioners along with three others, who were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, were tried under sections 302, 307, 149 and 148, P. P. C. for causing the death of one Dossa and injuring his brother Narra, P. W. 8 and sentenced to transportation for life, six years' R. I. and two years' R. I. respectively. The appeal preferred by them to the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, was dismissed.
The prosecution examined Nazra, P. W. 8, Malha, P. W. 9, Imam Din, P. W. 10 and Sardara, P. W. 11, who furnished ocular evidence.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Ramzo son of Fatta, Jhani and Shera as according to him their participa tion in the occurrence was doubtful. This conclusion was arrived at mainly for the reasons that the medical' evidence did not support the prosecution case that these three accused: persons participated in the occurrence and injured Dossa with ballams. It was also found that the evidence of recovery was not worthy of belief. The learned Judges in the High Court, however have observed that the evidence in the case did not justify the acquittal of these three accused persons.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the case of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. He has submitted that in view of the evidence which has been accepted by the Courts below he is not in a position to argue that the cases of these two petitioners call for interference by this Court. His contention with regard to the other four petitioners, however, is that the evidence of the eye‑witnesses with regard to tile participation of these four petitioners should not have been accepted. in the absence of any corroborative evidence. These witnesses‑ have been disbelieved in regard to the participation of the three acquitted. accused and as there is no corroborative evidence, the evidence of these witnesses could not form the basis of the convictions of the petitioners Nos. 3 to 6.
The questions raised relate to appreciation of evidence and as' the Courts below have accepted the evidence of eye-witnesses, we do not find any justification for interference in this case.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.