MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs GHULAM HITSSAIN And Other
Muhammad Akram filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29-4-1980, which acquitted the respondent Ghulam Hussain of the charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and altered his conviction to section 304-I, reducing his sentence to the period already undergone. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reducing the sentence accordingly. The Supreme Court held that, upon reviewing the evidence and the reasons provided in the impugned judgment, the High Court was fully justified in its findings and in acquitting the respondent of the original murder charge. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, establishing that appellate interference is unwarranted where the lower court's appreciation of evidence regarding sudden provocation or altered intent is sound.
- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from section 302 to section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with an acquittal and sentence reduction where the High Court's reasoning is supported by the record?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Muhammad Akram complainant has filed this petition for leave 'to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29-4-1980, acquitting Ghulam Hussain respondent of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. And reducing his sentence.
2. The respondent was tried for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf deceased and convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000. On appeal the High Court altered his conviction to one under section 304-I and at the same the reduced his sentence to that already undergone by him.
The petitioner seeks conviction of the respondent under section 302, P.P.C. And enhancement of his sentence.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. We feel that in view of the evidence on the record the learned High Court was justified in convicting him under section 304-I, P.P.C. And reducing his sentence. We are of the view that for the reasons given in par&. 7 of the impugned judgment the learned High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. And convicting him under section 304-1, P.P.C., and reducing his sentence. We, therefore, do not consider it a fit case for interference. The petition is consequently dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.