SAJAWAL SHAH vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sajawal Shah against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained his conviction under sections 304(I), 308, and 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting his co-accused. The petitioner was originally tried along with others for murder, murderous assaults, and rioting, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life and fines. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis of a plea of self-defence requiring reappraisal of evidence and whether a judgment of a Sessions Court not cited before the High Court could be relied upon. The Supreme Court held that it is not proper to grant leave merely for the reappraisal of evidence when no question of law is raised, and that a judgment of a Sessions Judge cannot be cited for the first time before the apex court when it was omitted below. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal along with the bail application.
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal merely for the reappraisal of evidence when no question of law is raised?
- Can a judgment of a Sessions or Additional Sessions Judge be cited for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not cited before the High Court?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304(I), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Sajawal Shah petitioner was tried along-with 11 others under sections 148, 302/307/149, P. P. C. For forming an unlawful assembly and causing the murder of Saidan Shah (deceased) and making murderous assaults on Amir Shah, Gul Hussain Shah, Sadiq Shah and Masoom Shah, in furtherance of the common object of the said unlawful assembly. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum, however, acquitted 9 of the co-accused but convicted Sajawal Shah, Qurban Shah and Inayat Shah. Sajawal Shah was convicted under sections 304(I), 308, P. P.
C. And 447, P. P. C. Under section 304(I), P. P. C. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 5,000 (further 2 years' R. I. In default). Under section 308/34, P. P. C. He was sentenced to 5 years' R. I. And a fine of Rs, 3,000 (further one year's R. I. In default), and under section 447/34 he was sentenced to one month's R. I. The remaining two co-accused were convicted under sections 308/34 and 447/34, P. P. C. They were sentenced under section 308/34, P. P. C. To 5 years' R. I. And a fine of Rs, 3,000 (further one year's R. I. In default) each and under section 447/34, P. P. C. One month's R. I. Each.
' On appeal the High Court acquitted the remaining two co-accused (i,e, Qurban Shah and Inayat Shah) but maintained the conviction and sentence of Sajawal Shah petitioner. The latter has come to this Court against the said order through the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at length and gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his plea of self-defence had been wrongly rejected. To show this he wanted us to reappraise the evidence. No question of law has been raised. We are afraid we do not consider it proper in this case to grant leave merely for reappraisal of evidence.
3. The learned counsel then relied on a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in another case. In the first place, it is not proper to cite the judgment of a Sessions or Additional Sessions Judge before us. In any case the counsel has admitted that he had not cited this judgment before the High Court. He cannot, therefore, be permitted to refer this judgment.
' With the above observation we dismiss the main petition alongwith the bail application.