MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Others vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ And Another
This matter involves criminal petitions arising from a judgment of the High Court, where one petition was filed by the accused convict seeking reversal of conviction and the other by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence from imprisonment for life back to death. The core legal question addressed was whether the Supreme Court should reappraise the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts and whether interference was warranted for the reduction of sentence. The Supreme Court held that it is not a fit case for the reappraisal of evidence as no substantial legal contention was raised to warrant departure from concurrent findings, and further held that the reasons recorded by the High Court for reducing the sentence from death to life imprisonment were valid and proper. Consequently, both petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, affirming the impugned judgment of the High Court.
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence to reverse concurrent findings of fact of lower courts without a valid legal contention?
- Whether the reasons recorded by the High Court for reducing a sentence from death to imprisonment for life warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This Order shall dispose of Cr.P. No.42-R of 1985 filed by Muhammad Siddiq, accused /convict, and Cr. Petition No. 40-R of 1985 filed by Muhammad Akram, Complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence of Mohammad Siddiq (respondent in the last mentioned petition).
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both petitions. The learned counsel for the accused/ respondent in Cr. Petition No.42-R of 1985 has not raised any legal contention and only wants a reappraisal of the evidence on the record for the reversal of findings of facts arrived at by Courts below. After going through the impugned judgment and considering the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel we do not consider this to be a fit case for reappraisal of evidence. Cr. Petition no.42-R of 1985 is, therefore, dismissed.
3. As for Cr. Petition No.40-R of 1985 filed, by Mohammad Akram, Complainant, for the enhancement of the sentences of Mohammad Siddiq, we find that the reasons recorded by the High Court for reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life are valid and proper. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for interference. This petition, too, is therefore, dismissed.
4. This dispose of both the petitions. 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.