1968 PLP 1415 (SCMR)

( On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 12th July 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 309 of 1966).

Art. 58 (3)‑‑Criminal case Question relating to evaluation of evidence‑Cannot be raised in appeal before Supreme Court‑Special Leave to Appeal‑Refused. Nemo for the State. ORDER ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The two petitioners and one Muhammad Asif were convicted by a Magistrate of First Class with powers under section 30, Cr. P. C., under section 307/34, P. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, altered their convictions from under section 307/34, P. P. C. to sections 323, 324, 325/34, P. P. C., sentencing each of them under section 323, P. P. C. to rigorous imprisonment for one year, under section 324, P. P. C. to rigorous imprisonment for two years, and under section 325/34, P. P. C. to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, maintained the convictions and sentences in revision. Four witnesses, namely, Rahmat Ali P. W. 2, Badruddin P. W. 5, Din Muhammad P. W. 3, and Siraj Din P. W. 4 were examined to furnish ocular evidence. The Additional Sessions Judge did not believe the evidence of Rehmat Ali and Badruddin as their names did not appear in the First Information Report. The learned Single Judge also thought that since the First Information Report was lodged by the injured man himself soon after the occurrence there was no reason why he should not have named those two witnesses. Din Muhammad and Siraj Din have been believed. It has been found that Din Muhammad is not related to the parties. Siraj Din is a first cousin of the com plainant but he is also related to Mehraj Din. In this view of the matter the learned Single Judge in agreement with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, accepted the evidence of Allah Ditta, the complainant, as corroborated by the evidence of Din Muhammad and Siraj Din. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since two of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have been disbelieved, the evidence of the other two witnesses who furnished ocular evidence should have been found to be doubtful. He has also argued that as the evidence of discovery also was discarded by the Additional Sessions Judge and Siraj Din was one of the witnesses to the discovery, the petitioners should have been given the benefit of doubt. The questions relate to evaluation of evidence and cannot be raised in this Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.