1990 P Cr (PLP)
MAMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (MAMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Khizar Abbas Khan for Petitioners
Headnotes / Summary
S. 324/34
Witnesses had unanimously supported the prosecution case
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had given cogent reasons for relying upon the evidence
No justification could, be found for, disagreeing with the Courts below
Doctor ruled out the possibility of injuries being self-suffered
No misreading of evidence or any illegality was pointed out
Interference declined.
Judgment & Decree
The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that a case under section 324, P.P.C., was registered against the petitioners. They were tried by a Magistrate First Class, Jhang, who convicted them to one year's R.I. each and a fine of Rs.500 each, for an offence under section 324, P.P.C. They filed an appeal against their conviction and sentences but the same was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, vide his judgment dated 21-6-1989. It is contended by learned counsel,, for the petitioners that according to P.W.1, he had not witnessed the occurrence. Submits that P.W.2 being a close relation of the injured could not be relied upon. Asserts that the nature of the injury as observed by the doctor could not be the result of a Kassi blow. 2. 1 have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. All the witnesses are unanimous that the petitioners were present at the spot and had caused injuries to them. Both the Courts Wow had discussed the evidence and given cogent reasons for not relying upon the evidence. I do not find any justification for not agreeing to the findings arrived at by both the Courts A below. The contention of learned counsel that the injuries in question could be self-suffered is also without force because the doctor in his statement had specifically ruled out the possibility of injuries being self-suffered. Since there is neither any misreading of evidence nor any illegality has been pointed out, therefore, I find no merits in the revision, which is accordingly dismissed. SA./2006/LRevision dismissed.