ATA MUHAMMAD Versus GHULAM RASOOD KHAN

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.- -This order will dispose of Jail Petition No. 62-R of 1983 and Criminal Petition No. 286 of 1983, as both are directed against the order of the High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1981, dated 29-6-1983.

2. Naurang Khan son of Ghulam Rasool Khan and his father Ghulam Rasul Khan aged 72 years were tried for the murder of Muhammad Aslam Khan aged 28 years and were convicted under section 302, P.P. C. and sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali. The appeal of the convicts as well as the petition seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the petitioner to death was also filed and both these matters are disposed of by Mr. Justice Javid Iqbal, C.J. vide his judgment dated 29-6-1983.

3. The learned Chief Justice partly accepted the appeal and acquitted Ghulam Rasul Khan, the father of Naurang Khan but maintained the conviction and sentence of the latter (Naurang Khan).

4. Ata Muhammad, the complainant, has filed Criminal Petition No. 286 of 1983 for setting aside the order of the Lahore High Court acquitting Ghulam Rasul Khan, while Naurang Khan has filed a jail petition from Jail (J.P. No. 62-R of 1983) praying that his conviction and sentence should also be set aside. This last mentioned petition is barred by three days but in view of the long sentence, the delay is condoned and the petition is being disposed of on the merits.

5. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and heard the learned counsel for Ata Muhammad who has argued that the acquittal of Ghulam Rasul Khan is not justified and that he also deserves to be convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and punished accordingly.

6. After having heard the learned counsel, perused the relevant portion of the evidence and the impugned judgment we observe that the petitioner's counsel is merely seeking the re-appraisal of the evidence on questions of fact. Having considered his submissions in the light of the evidence on the record and the observations of the learned Courts below we do not consider that this case is a fit one for undertaking that exercise. Accordingly, both Criminal Petition No. 286 of 1983 and Jail Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 62-R of 1983 are dismissed.

7. In the result both these petitions (Criminal Petition 286 of 1983 and Jail Petition No. 62-R of 1983) stand dismissed.

8. S. Q./A-122/S Petitions dismissed.