1990 PLP 1183 (SCMR)

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.

The complainant seeks leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Lahore High Court dated 30-5-1988.

2. The respondents were found guilty under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment each with fine of Rs.2,000 in default, for one year rigorous imprisonment, by a learned Magistrate Section 30, Lahore vide order dated 14-7-1982. On their appeal, the conviction was maintained but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to three years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 29-11-1982: They filed a revision petition. The learned Judge of the High Court, now its Chief Justice, concluded: "Admittedly, Afsaruddin petitioner was m possession of the Ihata in question and was running a workshop there. In the Kalandara (EX.DG) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been stated that Abdul Latif sold the premises in question to Muhammad Nawaz etc. for Rs.80,000 and they wanted to get the possession of the same from Afsaruddin etc. who were occupying it as tenants. On 4-1-1977 they went to the said premises for taking possession resulting in a quarrel between the parties in which both the sides suffered injuries. Evidence on the record clearly shows that Afsaruddin petitioner was in undisputed possession of the premises in question. The complainant party had no right to enter upon the said property but they did enter upon it for taking forcible possession of the same. Muhammad Nawaz P.W. stated that after he had fallen down the accused persons dragged him to the Ihata but this does not appear to be the correct position as he had no dragging marks on his person. It is fully established that he had trespassed into the Ihata. The accused were, therefore, within their right to cause him any harm other than death. He suffered only three injuries, all simple in nature." The revision petition was, therefore, allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence and the respondents were acquitted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned High Court was in error to have set aside the conviction. He has, however, not been able to show as to how the findings recorded by the learned High Court do not flow from the evidence on the record nor has he pointed out any misreading or illegality in the impugned order. His emphasis is for re-appraisal of evidence so as to reverse the findings. Neither it is done by this Court normally nor there is any justifiable reason to reverse the findings recorded by the learned High Court.

4. In view of the above, there is no force in this petition. It is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./M-1246/S. Petition dismissed.