Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GUL KHAN VS Respondent: THE STATE and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Syed Usman Ali Shah Title: GUL KHAN vs THE STATE and others Case No.: Criminal Petition No, 345 of 1987 Date of Judgment:1989-06-20 Reported As: 1990 SCMR 279 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Gul Khan who lodged the report on 14-3-1980 at 11-45 a.m. At Police Station Sadar Mianwafi with regard to the murder of his cousin Kamand Khan, has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19-9-1987 whereby respondents Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted. ' The petitioner named five persons--the three abovementioned respondents alongwith Khan Bahadur and Sher Bahadur. The trial Court by judgment dated 24-1-1984 acquitted Sher Bahadur and convicted the rest. Khan Bahadur was sentenced to death and fine of Rs,3,000, or in default three months R.I. Zarif Khan, Kashmir Khan and Muhammad Ashraf were sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs,3,000 each or in default three months R.I. Each. All the four were also convicted under section 307 P.P.C. And sentenced to seven years R.I. Each with fine of Rs,1,000 each or in default one month R.I. Each. ' On appeal, the High Court vide the impugned judgment acquitted all. The petitioner wants the acquittal to be set aside. ' We have heard Mr. Ismail Qureshy, learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He challenged the acquittal on the ground that the case against the respondents had been proved by ocular evidence as well as by other circumstantial evidence. It was contended that the High Court without any legal justification rejected the ocular testimony especially when the eye-witnesses disclosed all the relevant facts and never concealed either their relationship or the past enmity. ' We don't think these are good grounds for leave to appeal because we find that the High Court after going through the entire evidence noted that the eye-witnesses could not be relied upon
---
## Page 2
because either they were not present at the spot or had falsely deposed against the respondents. ' It was further mentioned in the impugned judgment that the eyewitnesses were related inter se as well as to the deceased. They were inimical towards the appellants because of the past strained relations due to the murder of father of Khan Bahadur, Zarif Khan and Sher Bahadur accused which took place two years prior to the present occurrence. Appreciation of evidence is the function of the High Court. This has been properly done. Therefore, unless it is proved that either some evidence on a substantial point was misread or there was a mistake of law or even of fact which resulted in miscarriage of justice which is not the case, we don't think any case is made out for leave to appeal. Dismissed.