Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Respondent: SHER AHMED
1984 S C M R 419
1984 S C M R 419
Present : Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner
Versus
SHER AHMED AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 25‑R of 1983, decided on 14th December, 1983.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 19‑2‑1983 passed in Criminal Revision No. 172 of 1982).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
------Art. 185(3)‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417‑No question of law raised by petitioner but wanted reappraisal of evidence‑--No good reason brought forward as to why Supreme Court should interfere in concurrent finding of fact arrived at by Courts below by reappraising evidence afresh‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed with observation that dismissal of petition shall have no effect in case of absconding accused and yet not been apprehended.‑[Evidence].
Ch. Abdur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sardar M. Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
K. E. Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for A.‑G. (Punjab) for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1983.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑--This petition by Muhammad Aslam is directed against the acquittal of Sher Ahmad, and Mumtaz alias Taj, who were accused alongwith one Muhammad Akram for the murder of Ashraf. Muhammad Akram accused, however, absconded and the case of the two respondents was separated. They were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Attock but were acquitted by him vide judgment, dated 23‑9‑1982. The petitioner filed a revision against their acquittal before the High Court which was dismissed.
Hence the present petition.
2. We have heard the petitioner's counsel. He has not raised an question of law but only wants us to reappraise the evidence. He has no 't been able to put forward any good reason why we should interfere in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below by reappraising the evidence afresh. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
3. It may, however, be clarified that dismissal of this petition shall not have any effect on the case of Muhammad Akram, the third accused who has absconded and has not yet been apprehended.
M. Z. M. Appeal dismissed.