KHALID ZAMAN vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Khalid Zaman against the dismissal of his criminal revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld his conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, having been sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine for causing an abdominal injury to the complainant, challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt and the nature of the injury were sustainable. The Supreme Court observed that the occurrence took place in a well-lit environment, facilitating identification, and that the prosecution witnesses consistently supported the complainant's account of the attack. Finding no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the three courts below, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction and the sentence awarded were appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the dangerous nature of the injury inflicted.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a criminal revision petition?
- Is an abdominal injury caused by a knife blow considered a dangerous injury for the purpose of Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 30, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 185, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Laws (Continuance in Force) Order No. 1 of 1977
ORDER
1. SHAH NAWAZ KHAN, J.-Khalid Zaman is charged for offence under section 307, P. P. C. His application for bail was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class with enhanced powers under Section 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code at Attock. After the trial, he and his co-accused Badri Zaman was also found guilty of offence punishable under section 307/34, P.P.C. And both of them were sentenced to undergo R. I. For seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, which amount was to be paid to Arif Mebmood (injured person) by way of compensation. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Attock by order dated 15-9-1981. He then moved the Lahore High Court, but there too he failed and his petition was dismissed in limine, and he has now moved this Court through the present petition under Article 185 of the Constitution read with Laws (Continuance in Force)
2. Order No. 1 of 1977 for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Laho re High Court dated 7-10-1981 passed in Criminal Revision No. 141 of 1981.
3. Enmity between the accused petitioner and the complainant (injures person) is admitted. The occurrence took place in the Cinema Hall during the interv al of the last show when the lights were on and the identification --was not impossible. Both the trial Court and the Sessions Judge with whom the High Court has also concurred had found that the abdomen injury to Aril Mehmood was caused by Khalid Zaman petitioner , and he has direct charged Khalid Zaman petitioner for that. Injury piercing through the muscles and going to cavity is always considered dangerous.
4. He had given a chhuri blow hitting Arif Mehmood on his abdomen. The prosecution witnesses who entered the witness-box support Arif Mehmood, and have leveled a clear charge against Khalid Nawaz for his making attempt on the life of Arif Mehmood.
5. We, therefore, see no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings o the three Courts below . The sentence awarded to Khalid Zaman petitioner is also appropriate in the circumstances of the case. This petition for leave is, therefore, dismissed.