MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs The STATE
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a murderous assault. The petitioner raised two primary arguments: first, that the evidence regarding the grievous nature of the injury was flawed because the doctor who performed the X-ray examination was not examined; and second, that the sentence should be reduced due to the five-year duration of the trial. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim regarding the medical evidence, noting that the High Court had correctly relied on the testimony of the examining doctor who confirmed the injury was grievous upon X-ray examination. Furthermore, the Court observed that this specific plea regarding the medical evidence was not raised before the High Court. Regarding the sentence, the Court found no merit in the request for reduction, noting the petitioner remained on bail throughout the proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the trial duration did not warrant sentence mitigation under these circumstances.
- Can a petitioner raise a new plea regarding the sufficiency of medical evidence in a leave to appeal petition if it was not raised before the High Court?
- Does the duration of a trial justify a reduction in sentence if the accused remained on bail throughout the proceedings?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EHRAHIM, J.--.This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14-6-1980 made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1980 dismissing petitioner's appeal against his conviction under section 307, P. P.
2. C. For committing murderous assault upon Fazal Hussain P. W. 1 and sentence of four and a half years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to undergo further R. I. For six months made by the learned Magistrate, Gujrat, vide his judgment dated 3-3-1980.
3. The limited argument in support of this petition relates only to the sentence.
4. Mr. Agha Aziz Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner; contended that the case against the petitioner was that one of the injuries caused to P. W. 1 Fazal Hussain was grievous but evidence was limited to certain simple injuries only which would at best make out a case under section 324, P. P. C. The finding of the two Courts that one of the said injuries, viz. Injuries No. 2 was grievous, it was argued, was based on medical evidence of P. W. 3, Dr. Sami Tariq, while it was alleged that it was Dr. Altaf Hussain Rathore who had on the basis of an X-ray examination found this injury to be grievous vide his report Exh. P. E., but Dr. Rathore was not examined. The finding of the trial Court is that Dr. Sami Tariq who bad conducted the medical examination, while appearing as P. W. 3, had stated that injury No. 2 was subsequently found dangerous to life. The learned counsel has not placed before us either a copy of Exh. P. E. Or a copy of deposition of P. W. 3, Dr. Sami Tariq. The finding of the High Court is that according to the evidence of Dr. Sami Tariq, Injury No. 2 was on X- ray examination, found to be grievous. It would, therefore, appear that Dr. Sami Tariq was the first person who examined the injured and bad given his finding that the injury No. 2 was grievous on X- ray examination. It is, therefore, incorrect that there was no evidence that injury No. 2 caused on the person of P. W. 1 was grievous. We have also noticed that no such ground was urged in the appeal before the High Court and we would, therefore, be disinclined to permit the petitioner to raise this plea in the present leave petition.
5. It was next contended that the petitioner has suffered agony of trial for 5 years which would justify reduction in his sentence. The petitioner was, however, throughout on bail except for a period of 20 days. No ground is, therefore, made out for reduction in the petitioner's sentence.
6. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.