Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SAEED VS Respondent: MUNIR AHMAD
1988 S C M R 314
1988 S C M R 314
Present: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
MUHAMMAD SAEED--Petitioner
versus
MUNIR AHMAD and 3 others--Respondents
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.56 of 1983, decided on 25th November, 1987.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16-1-1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Revision No.695 of 1982).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---Ss.302/34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Petition against acquittal--Different accused named subsequently--Benefit of doubt--Two different sets of accused named--Acquittal of respondents challenged--Grave doubt in respect of participation of respondents was created by naming other set of persons to have committed the offence and trial Court after scanning evidence carefully had come to a correct conclusion--Leave to appeal refused.
Sardar Roshan Ali Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
M.A.Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate- on-Record for the State.
Date of hearing: 25th November, 1987.
ORDER
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to Appeal against the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 16-1-1983.
2. The respondents were charged under section 302/34 P.P.C. for committing the murder of Mahmood Anwar on 26-1-1981 at 8.30 a.m., the report of which was lodged the same day after an hour of the occurrence. After about six months one Muhammad Baig, a relation of the deceased, filed an application to the police charging a different set of accused namely, Shaukat Majid, Liaqat, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Yousaf to have committed the murder of Mahmood Anwar. The investigation against the seven accused was taken in hand and after its completion, the respondents alongwith the four others given above were put to trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, who vide his Judgment dated 8-9-1982, acquitted the respondents and the four acquitted accused cited above. It seems that the State did not agitate the matter further, but the complainant, namely, Muhammad Saeed, filed a revision petition against the acquittal of the respondents in the High Court. This revision was dismissed through the impugned Judgment.
3. We have gone through the Judgments of the Courts below and are of the view that the case does not require our interference, in that a grave doubt in respect of the participation of the respondents in this case was created by naming other set of persons to have committed this offence. Besides this the learned trial Court has scanned the evidence carefully and came to the conclusion that the case against the respondents is not free from doubt, with which we agree.
4. Thus finding no force, this petition is dismissed.
M.I./M-268/S Petition dismissed.