1991 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM QADIR — Petitioner Versus ABBAS and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR — Petitioner Versus ABBAS and 5 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 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: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM QADIR — Petitioner Versus ABBAS and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aqil Mirza for Petitioner.
- Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 323, 452 & 148/149
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.439-- Acquittal
Appellate Court while acquitting accused had applied its conscious mind to relevant evidence and had given sound and cogent reasons for conclusion arrived at
Appellate Court was competent to believe or disbelieve evidence on record
Appellate Court found eye-witnesses as not reliable for having suppressed injuries of accused persons
Motive was not proved
Evidence of Investigating Officer was not properly considered by Trial Court
One of accused was allegedly carrying hatchet but no sharp-edged injury was found on injured witnesses
Reasons for not placing implicit reliance on statements of witnesses were given which found support from evidence on record and circumstances of case
Evidence was appreciated in accordance with law-- Judgment of acquittal was neither perverse nor illegal
Interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction with well-reasoned judgment of acquittal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the respondents denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not produce any witness in defence.
4. The trial Court, vide its judgment, dated 28-4-1982, convicted all the accused under sections 148, 452/149, P.P.C. and 323/149, P.P.C. and sentenced them as under:-- Under section 148, P.P.C. to six months' R.I. Under section 452/149, P.P.C to one year's each and a fine of Rs.1,000 each and Under section 323/149, P.P.C. to one year's R.I. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, acquitted the respondents of the charges, hence this revision against acquittal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the respondents but they have been acquitted without any legal and factual justification and that the prosecution evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned appellate Court. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of acquittal.
5. I have considered the matter carefully. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned appellate Court was quite competent to believe/disbelieve the evidence disbelieved/believed by the trial Court. The learned appellate Court has applied its conscious mind to the relevant evidence and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by it. The learned appellate Court was of the view that the eye-witnesses having suppressed the injuries of Ali Muhammad respondent,/accused. were not reliable; that the motive was not proved; that the statement made by the Investigating Officer was not properly considered by the trial Court and that according to the prosecution, one of the accused was carrying hatchet but there was no sharp-edged injury on the person of two injured witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also given other reasons for not placing implicit reliance on the statements of the eye-witnesses. The reasons given by the learned appellate Court finds support from the evidence on record and circumstances appearing in the case. The learned appellate Court has appreciated the evidence in accordance with law and the rules laid down by the superior Courts. The judgment of the learned appellate Court is neither perverse nor illegal.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal, so the revision is dismissed. SA./G-447/L Revision dismissed.