Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS Respondent: ZAFAR ABBAS
1988 S C M R 354
1988 S C M R 354
Present: Nasim Hasan Shah, S.A. Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN--Petitioner
versus
ZAFAR ABBAS and 2 others--Respondents
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 20 of 1983, decided on 25th November, 1987.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 13-12-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 1979, Murder Reference No. 179 of 1979).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
----S.302/34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal--Reappraisal of evidence--Supreme Court declined to reappraise evidence on question of fact and refused leave to appeal.
Ch. Muhammad Abdul Waahid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Pervaiz Alamgir, 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 the Lahore High Court, dated 13-12-1982.
Zafar Abbas and Muhammad Iqbal were charged for the murder of Salabat on 14-3-1975 at Khuftanwela, the report of which was lodged after four days of the occurrence at 1-00 p.m. by Muhammad Hussain. After the completion of the investigation, both the respondents were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat who, vide his Judgment, dated 25-9-1979, convicted the respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C: and sentenced both of them to death and a fine of Rs.3,000 each or in default to undergo one year's R.I. Fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to Mst Sardaran widow of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The respondents took the matter in appeal in the High Court where they succeeded in obtaining their acquittal through the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record at considerable length. All that the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks is the re-appraisal of the evidence on the question of fact. Having considered his arguments in the light of the evidence, we do not consider it a fit case for re-appraisal of the evidence. The petition is thus dismissed.
M. I. /M-278/S Petition dismissed.