1990 PLP 673 (SCMR)

Kh. M. Afral, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Klian Mehtab. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Cr. P. 209 of 1986). Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M. A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioners (in Cr. P. No.254 of 1986). Nemo for Respondents (in Cr. P. No.254 of 1986). Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate-on-Record (absent), M. Akhtar. Additional Advocate-General and Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in Cr. P. No.209 of 1986). Date of hearing: 20th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZLTLLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions, -- one against conviction and the other (by the complainant) for enhancement in a case of culpable homicide involving three deaths as also injuries to a PW and serious injuries to two accused persons also who were acquitted by the trial Court. The remaining accused have been convicted under section 304, Part 1, P.P.C. and have been awarded 7 years' R.I. After hearing both the learned counsel we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against the acquitted accused. The argument of. the learned counsel based on the so-called contradictions in the impugned judgment. vis-a-vis, their acts is of no force when examining a pica for setting aside an acquittal. Criminal Petition No. 209 of 1986, therefore, is dismissed in so far as it is directed against the acquittal of Mobarik Ali and Mashooq Ali respondent therein. The same, however, is allowed in so far as the remaining convict namely, Mahoob, Islamuddin, Sharafat Ali, Ashiq Ali and Shaukat Ali are concerned to the extent only that the question regarding the sentence awarded to them under section 304, Part 1, P.P.C., needs examination. In that very context it would further need examination; whether, they should not be directed to pay adequate/heavy fine/compensation for the same offence; namely, 304, Part I, P.P.C. The prayer seeking their conviction under section 302 PPC is not tenable, therefore, leave is not being granted in this behalf in the said petition; namely, No.209 of 1986. As leave to appeal has been granted against the petitioners in Cr.P. No.209 of 1986 for the enhancement of sentence/compensation, leave to appeal is granted to them also in Cr. P. No. 254 of 1986 regarding the pleas taken therein. Both the appeals arising out of these petitions shall be heard together. The petitioners/convicts in Criminal Petition No. 254 of 1986 arc stated to have been released after they had served out their sentence. Bailable warrants for their appearance in the sum of Rs.10,000 each with one surety each returnable to the District Magistrate concerned, shall be issued against them. M.A.K./S-462/S Leave granted.