Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MARYAM VS Respondent: IRSHAD AHMAD
1988 S C M R 33
1988 S C M R 33
Present: Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Mst. MARYAM and 4 others--Petitioner
versus
IRSHAD AHMAD and others--Respondents
Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 129 and 344 of 1985, decided on 20th July, 1987.
(On appeals from the judgment dated 20-2-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, passed in Criminal Appeal No.66, Criminal Revision No.86 and Murder Reference No.14 of 1982).
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---Ss. 302 & 307 read with S. 34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Evidence--High Court finding ocular testimony worthy of credit--No reason shown to take a different view in the matter- Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
--S. 302--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Sentence- High Court giving substantial reasons for not confirming sentence of death--No justification found for interfering with discretion exercised by High Court--Petition for leave to appeal against such order dismissed.
Abdus Satter Najam, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 129 of 1985).
Nemo for Respondent (in Criminal Petition No.129 for 1985).
Abdur Rahman Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. (in Criminal Petition No. 344 of 1985).
Nemo for Respondent (in Criminal Petition No.344 of 1985).
Date of hearing: 20th July, 1987.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur whereby the petitioners in Cr.P.S.L.A. No. 344 of 1985 were convicted of offences under sections 302 and 307, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Of these petitioners, Fida Hussain has since died and as such so far as he is concerned the petition stands abated.
2. The High Court has found the ocular testimony worthy of credit and we see no reason to take a different view in the matter. It may be mentioned that there were two eye-witnesses. One of them was injured during the course of occurrence and the other lived at a distance of 3 Acres from the spot. There was no reason why they should have falsely implicated the petitioners in the case. Their evidence was sufficient to support their conviction.
3. As regards the petition filed by the mother of the deceased for the restoration of the sentences of death imposed upon the petitioners by the trial Court it has no merit for the High Court has given substantial reasons for not confirming the sentences of death. We can find no justification for interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court. Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
S.Q./M-216/S Petitions dismissed.