MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the petitioner's conviction and sentence regarding an incident of causing injury. The petitioner was originally tried and convicted by a Magistrate under sections 325 and 452/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal trespass and causing injury. Following an appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence. Subsequently, the High Court altered the conviction to section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and further reduced the sentence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence sufficiently established the petitioner's guilt, particularly given the complainant's ability to identify the assailant during a daylight occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the guilt was squarely established and that the petitioner had already been dealt with leniently by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding it devoid of merit, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence as modified by the High Court.
- Does a prior friction between parties regarding house evacuation constitute sufficient motive for a complainant to falsely implicate an accused?
- Can a conviction be sustained where the occurrence took place in daylight, allowing the injured party to identify the assailant?
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30th January, 1985 dismissing his Criminal Revision (No.30 of 1985).
2. The fats giving rise to this petition are briefly, that Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner was tried alongwith to others by a 1st Class Magistrate under sections 325, 452/34, P.P.C. For causing injury to Muhammad Tariq, after having committed criminal trespass into his house.
3. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the to co-accused but convicted Ramzan petitioner under section 325/34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to to years' R. I.
4. Ramzan filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, who maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to one year's R.I. And imposed fine of Rs.2,000, in default of payment of which he eras ordered to undergo another 3 months' R.I.
5. Ramzan petitioner then filed criminal revision in the High Court which altered his conviction from section 325 to one under section 323 P.P.C. And reduced his sentence of imprisonment to 6 months'
R.I and also reduced the sentence of fine to Rs.1,000 in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further 11 months' R.I.
6. The petitioner has now moved this Court for grant of Leave to Appeal.
7. We have heard the petitioner's learned counsel at some length and have also gone through the impugned judgment. It was a day the occurrence. It cannot therefore be said that the injured person had not been able to see the person who had inflicted a Sota blow to him. Of course there was friction between the parties over the evacuation of a house belonging to the complainant, but this cannot be said to constitute sufficient motive to have induced Tariq complainant to spare the person who caused him the injury and, instead, implicate the petitioner.
8. We feel that guilt has been squarely brought to the petitioner and that he has already been dealt with rather lightly.
9. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.