Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD JANHonorable Justice Javid Iqbal
1988 S C M R 492
1988 S C M R 492
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD AKRAM--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD JAN and another--Respondents
Petition for Leave to Appeal No-.213 of 1984, decided on 11th January, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23rd April 1984 in Criminal Appeal No.411 of 1981/Murder Reference No.127 of 1981).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-
---S.302--Trial Court convicting accused under S .302, P . P . C . and sentencing him to death but High Court, on appeal, while maintaining conviction, reducing death sentence to that of life imprisonment- Contention raised that High Court had altered accused's sentence merely on conjecture that deceased must have said something to accused which enraged him and said conversation could not have been heard by eye-witnesses and that there was nothing on record for drawing such conclusion--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether reason given by High Court for awarding lesser penalty to accused was sustainable in the light of evidence on record.
Ch. Rafique Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim Advocate-on-Record (since dead) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th January, 1988.
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Akram complainant-petitioner and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23rd April, 1984 whereby while maintaining the conviction of Muhammad Jan respondent under section 302, P.P.C., his sentence was reduced from death to that of life imprisonment.
Briefly the facts are that Muhammad Jan respondent was tried on a charge under section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of Irfan Ilahi his ca-villager and vide judgment dated 18 June, 1981 of the Sessions Judge, Sialkot he was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death plus fine.
The prosecution case is that Muhammad Akram petitioner had a cloth shop in Main Bazar Zafarwal. On 14th August, 1980 Muhammad Jan respondent purchased cloth from the deceased who is son of Muhammad Akram petitioner. As he did not cut the cloth in a straight line, there was shortage of cloth. When Muhammad Jan respondent discovered the fault he came back to the shop and there took place an altercation between the two of them. However, the matter was patched up when Muhammad Akram petitioner alongwith others separated them and gave him one rupee as compensation. But Muhammad Jan respondent is said to have left with a threat to avenge the insult. The prosecution story further is that on the following day Muhammad Jan respondent appeared while the deceased was proceeding alongwith his father and two other eye-witnesses to the mosque for offering Juma prayers, and taking out a Chhuri he caused injuries to the deceased in the chest and on the arms which resulted in his death. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Akram petitioner, Muhammad Rashid and Ghulam Hussain PWs. Human blood-stained Chhuri was also recovered from Muhammad Jan respondent. According to the medical evidence the deceased had six incised injuries on his person. Muhammad Jan respondent had a superficial incised wound on the palm of the right hand and a superficial abrasion on the right elbow.
The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is admitted that Muhammad Jan respondent had caused injuries to the deceased and thus murdered him. It is also finding of the High Court that the superficial injury on the palm sustained by Muhammad Jan respondent was likely to have been suffered by him when he repeatedly attacked the deceased with the Chhuri. The superficial abrasion on his right elbow was suffered when he was apprehended at the spot. Yet while maintaining the conviction of Muhammad Jan respondent under section 302, P.P.C. the High Court altered his sentence from death to imprisonment for life merely on the conjecture that the deceased must have said something to Muhammad Jan respondent which enraged him and that the conversation which might have taken place between the deceased and Muhammad Jan respondent could have not been heard by the eye-witnesses. Learned counsel submits that there is nothing on the record on the basis of which this conclusion could be drawn.
We grant leave in this case to consider as to whether the reason given by the Lahore High Court for awarding lesser penalty to Muhammad Jan respondent is sustainable in the light of the evidence on the record.
S. Q./M-312/S Leave granted.