1987 PLP 175 (SCMR)

M.B. Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 269 of 1985) . Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in Criminal Petition No. 269 of 1985) . Nemat Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 269 of 1985). Date of hearing: 8th November, 1986. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This order will dispose of two petitions Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 265 of 1985 filed by Ghulam Rasool, Akhtar Nawaz and Khan Muhammad against their conviction and sentences and Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 269 of 1985 filed by Alam Sher complainant against the acquittal of Ejaz co‑accused and for the enhancement of sentences of Akhtar Nawaz and Khan Muhammad.

2. The three convict‑accused namely Ghulam Rasool, Akhtar Nawaz and Khan Muhammad (petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 265 of 1985) were tried along with 12 others for the murder of three persons namely Muhammad Shafi, Allah Bakhsh, and Sikandar Khan. The trial Court convicted 4 persons namely Ghulam Rasool, Akhtar Nawaz, Khan Muhammad and Muhammad Ijaz under section 302/34, P. P. C . and sentenced each of them to death and a fine of Rs.5,000 (six months' R.I. in case of default of payment of fine) and to 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 each under section 307, P.P.C. It, however, acquitted the remaining co‑accused. On appeal the High Court acquitted Muhammad Ijaz altogether and reduced sentence of death of Akhtar Nawaz and Khan Muhammad to that imprisonment for life and confirmed the death sentence of Ghulam Rasool. Still not satisfied the three convict‑accused have come up to pray for complete acquittal, while Alam Sher complainant has filed a petition to urge that Muhammad Ijaz co‑accused should not have been acquitted and to pray that the sentences of Akhtar Nawaz and Khan Muhammad should be enhanced.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length and have gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment and the portions of the evidence on the record with their help.

4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 265 of 1985 merely amount to a request for a reappraisal of evidence and reaching a different conclusion on questions of fact regarding conviction of the 3 petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we do not think this to be a fit case for that purpose. The Petition (No. 265/85), therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.

5. As for Criminal Petition No. 269 of 1985, filed by Alam Sher complainant, having given our anxious consideration to the matter we feel that the High Court was justified in acquitting Muhammad Ijaz co‑accused and reducing the sentences of Akhtar Nawaz and Khan Muhammad from death to that imprisonment for life. We do not, therefore, like to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition too fails and is, therefore, dismissed. M.I Petition dismissed.