Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS Respondent: MUNIR AHMAD
Present: Muhammad Haleem C.J, Shafiur Rahman,
Usman Ali Shah and Naimuddin, JJ
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others Petitioners
Versus
MUNIR AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.192 of 1984, decided on 7th November, 1988
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court. Lahore dated 10‑4‑1984, passed m Cr. A. No.585/82, State A.No.91/83 and Cr.R.No.329 of 1983)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.302/34 & 304, Part 1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑ Appraisal of evidence‑‑Deceased had‑ received five injuries whereas accused had received six injuries‑‑Courts below, after considering prosecution as well as defence versions carefully, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution version was not sound and rejected same‑‑High Court gave right of self‑defence to accused on a fair appraisal of evidence and acquitted him‑‑High Court had arrived at a correct conclusion after a proper and careful appraisal of evidence, which called for no interference‑‑Petition dismissed.
Muhammad Javed Buttar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Choudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Kh.Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7th November, 1988.
ORDER
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This criminal petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Yousaf etc., petitioners against the acquittal of Munir Ahmad respondent No.1 by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide its judgment dated 10‑4‑1984.
The respondent No.1 alongwith Jehangir lqbal acquitted accused were tried by the Sessions Judge Sialkot under section 302/34, P.P.C. for committing the murder of Tanveer alas Boota who vide his order dated 30‑10‑1982 acquitted Jehangir lqbal of the charge and convicted respondent No.1 under section 304 Part‑I, .P.P.C and sentenced him to 10 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.5000 or in default to undergo further R.I. for one year.
Munir Ahmad respondent No.1 filed CrA.No.585/82 against his conviction in the Lahore High Court, whereas the State filed appeal No.91 of 1983 against both the accused but it was admitted in the High Court only against respondent No.1 and he was issued notice to show cause as to why he should not be convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and against Jehangir Iqbal the same was dismissed in limine. The petitioners however, filed criminal revision No.329 of 1983 against respondent No.1 with the prayer that in case the State appeal is dismissed then sentence awarded to him under Section 304 Part‑1, P.P.C. may be suitably enhanced and adequate compensation be imposed on him. A learned Division Bench of the High Court which heard all the matters, dismissed the State appeal as well as the criminal revision of the petitioners and accepted the criminal appeal of Munir Ahmad respondent No.1 vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave.
We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the important portions of the impugned judgment as well as the statements of the P.Ws. and medical evidence. The finding of the trial Court are that the story narrated by the prosecution did not bear the truth. The learned trial Court however, reached the conclusion that both the eye‑witnesses were closely related to the deceased and there is a possibility that they pose to be the eye‑witnesses without having seen the occurrence, therefore, it discarded their testimony. The learned trial Court also rejected the plea of self‑defence put forward by Munir Ahmad respondent No.1 but it held that he had acted in a grave and sudden provocation and in a state of complete loss of power of self‑control inflicted injuries to the deceased. The learned trial Court brought his case under exception I of section 300, P.P.C. and convicted him under section 304, Part 1, P.P.C. The motive for the occurrence given by the prosecution is also disbelieved by the trial Judge. A perusal of the record shows that the deceased had received five injuries whereas the respondent No.1 had received six injuries. Unfortunately the injuries received by the deceased proved fatal. The trial Court rejected the injuries of respondent No.1 on the ground that the duration of injuries did not commensurate with the time of occurrence. The respondent No.1 was medically examined by Dr. Capt. Muhammad Aslam Butt (DW‑1) who clearly stated in his examination‑in‑chief that the duration of injuries could go upto 21 hours. The appellate Court after taking into consideration the medical evidence held that the respondent No.1 had actually suffered injuries in the said occurrence which could give the respondent the right of exercise of self‑defence.
After considering both the prosecution as, well as defence versions carefully the Courts below arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution version as set up by the petitioners was not sound and rejected the same. The learned f Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court for reasons given in their impugned judgment gave the right of exercise of self‑defence to respondent No.1 k on a fair appraisal of the evidence and acquitted him.
After a careful examination of the record and hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the learned Division Bench of the High Court has arrived at a correct conclusion after a proper and careful appraisal of the evidence in the present case which calls for no interference by this Court. In the circumstances we do not find any substance in this petition which accordingly is dismissed.
M.A.K./M‑954/S Petition dismissed.