2002 PLP 224 (SCMR)
GUL BAHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 224 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GUL BAHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 224 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 224 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 224 (SCMR) (GUL BAHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 29‑8‑2000 of the High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur passed in Cr. Acquittal Appeal No.D‑28 of 2000). ‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417 (2‑A)‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal ‑‑‑ Appeal against acquittal by Trial Court had rightly been dismissed by High Court being time‑barred‑‑‑Ocular evidence was in glaring conflict with the contents of the F.I.R. and the improvement and the exaggeration made at the trial had made the entire prosecution case doubtful‑‑‑Confessional statement and the recoveries had also been disbelieved by the Trial Court on proper reasons‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Court to complainant in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.‑‑‑By this petition, petitioner Gul Bahar son of Wahid Bux seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 29‑8‑2000 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh whereby his appeal against acquittal of the respondents, was dismissed being time‑barred.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very out set, could not satisfy about the reasons of delay in filing the appeal against acquittal although repeatedly asked. He simply emphasised that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution while acquitting the respondents.
3. On the face of it, the impugned order in our opinion does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Section 417 (2‑A), Cr.P.C. stipulates that an aggrieved person may file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by any Court, other than a High Court, within thirty days, which admittedly has not been done in this case.
4. On repeated insistence of the counsel for the petitioner we have gone through the record proceeding of the matter in detail and have considered the merits of the case also. According to the F.I.R. it was the respondent Ghulam Nabi only who caused the death of deceased Gul Hassasn, the brother of complainant within his sight as well as that of his brother Ghulam Rasool and Ali Nawaz whereas as per ocular account furnished by complainant Gul Bahar and above witnesses, respondents Ghulam Nabi, Ashiq, Nizam, Hadi Bux and Ghulam Hussain inflicted hatchet blows .to deceased Gul Hassan in their presence. This improvement and exaggeration at the trial make entire case of prosecution to be of doubtful nature and the trial Court had rightly disbelieved the same. Irrespective of this, the trial Court in its judgment has advanced proper reasonings for disbelieving the evidence on confessional statement and recoveries, thus not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./G/74‑S Leave refused.