Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: SAJID HUSSAIN SHAH
1988 S C M R 138
1988 S C M R 138
Present: Nasim Hasan Shah,. S. A. Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
MANZOOR HUSSAIN and another--Petitioner
Versus
SAJID HUSSAIN SHAH and others--Respondents
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 290 and Jail Petition No. 53-R of 1986, decided on 11th November, 1987.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 8-7-1986 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 182/83, Murder Reference No. 138 of 1983) .
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---Ss. 302 & 307/34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Leave to .Appeal--Appreciation of evidence--Petitions against conviction and acquittal/reduction in sentence--Reduction in sentence by High Court, challenged--Evidence on record properly weighed and sifted by High Court---No legal infirmity attributed to impugned judgment--Rules governing appreciation of evidence in criminal cases not violated- Grounds mentioned by High Court for granting lesser sentence to accused being justifiable in law, petitions, held, were devoid of force and dismissed.
Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 1986 and Jail Petition No. 138 of 1983).
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th November, 1987.
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.-- The Criminal Petition No.290 of 1986 has been brought by Manzoor Hussain complainant, seeking enhancement of the sentences awarded to the respondents, while Sajid Hussain Shah has sought leave to appeal from the same judgment of the learned High Court against his conviction. Both the petitions are being disposed of by this order.
2. The respondents Sajid Hussain Shah, Noor Hussain Shah and Nayar Hussain Shah, real brothers, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, for offences under sections 302/34 and 307/34, C.P.C., for causing the death of Mukarram Hussain and for attempting the murder of Manzoor Hussain P.W.8. Sajid Hussain accused was sentenced to death with fine under section 302/34, P.P.C. while the other co-accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine. They were also convicted and sentenced to three years' R.I. under section 307/34, P.P.C. with fine for causing injury to Manzoor Hussain. On appeals filed by them, the conviction of Sajid Hussain Shah under section 302/34, P.P.C. was maintained but the sentence of death awarded to him was altered to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine awarded to him was also maintained. Noor Hussain Shah was sentenced to five years' R.I. under section 325, P.P.C. and Nayyar Hussain Shah was sentenced to three years' R.I. under section 324, P.P.C. The sentence of fine imposed on the said two co-accused was, however, set aside. The conviction and sentences awarded to all the three accused under section 307/34, P.P.C. were also set aside.
3. We heard the learned counsel for Manzoor Hussain petitioner (complainant), who took us through the impugned judgment and the evidence recorded in the case. According to the learned counsel, the conviction and sentences awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge were justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the High Court should not have interfered with the same. In the alternative, it was contended that there were no extenuating circumstances, at least qua Sajid Hussain Shah for the reduction of his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. According to the learned counsel, the said accused had wielded a dagger and caused fatal injury to the deceased Mukarram Hussain Shah.
4. The judgment of the learned High Court shows that the contentions raised on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence were duly examined, evidence was properly weighed and sifted and no legal infirmity can be attributed to the judgment. The learned counsel was unable to show to us that any rule governing appreciation of evidence in criminal cases was violated by the learned High Court. He was also unable to satisfy us that the grounds mentioned by the learned High Court for granting lessor sentences to the accused were not justifiable in law.
As respects the jail petition filed by Sajid Hussain Shah, we find no ground for interference.;
5. In the result, both petitions have no merit and are dismissed accordingly.
M . I . / M-237 / S Petitions dismissed