WARRIS ALI vs NAZIR And 4 Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Warris Ali, challenging the acquittal of the respondents, Nazir, Rehmat, Hassan, and Allah Ditta, who were accused of the murder of Ashiq Ali. The respondents were originally tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who acquitted them of charges under sections 148 and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The State subsequently filed an appeal against this acquittal, which was dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking to overturn the High Court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel were identical to those raised before and rejected by the courts below. The Court found that the High Court had delivered a well-reasoned judgment that addressed the evidence and legal contentions appropriately. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no valid grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the lower courts. The petition was accordingly dismissed for lacking merit.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal where the lower courts have provided well-reasoned judgments?
- Can a petitioner successfully challenge an acquittal in the Supreme Court by merely repeating arguments already rejected by the High Court?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This petition by Waris Ali is directed against the acquittal of Nazir, Rehmat, Hassan and Allah Ditta, respondents 1 to 4 respectively.
2. The respondents were accused of the murder of Ashiq Ali deceased. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who vide his judgment dated 30-6-1976, acquitted all of them of the charge under sections 148 and 302/149, P.P.C. The State filed an appeal against their acquittal which was dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 26-4-1980.
Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgments.
We notice that all the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel before us were also raised before the Courts below but were repelled. Having considered these contentions and after going through the impugned judgments we feel that the well-reasoned judgment recorded by the High Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.
The petition is, therefore, rejected as having no force. 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.