MUHAMMAD KHAN And Others vs The STATE
This matter arises from two criminal petitions: one filed by the accused convicts against their convictions and sentences for double murder, and the other filed by the complainant for the enhancement of those sentences. The core legal question involves whether the Supreme Court should reappraise the evidence and interfere with concurrent factual findings of the courts below regarding convictions and the reduction of sentences. The Supreme Court held that it is not inclined to enter into a reappraisal of evidence or reverse concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts when no valid legal contention is raised, and further held that the reasons recorded by the High Court for awarding lesser sentences are tenable. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to reappraise evidence to upset concurrent findings of fact in criminal petitions where no substantial question of law is presented.
- Will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence to reverse concurrent findings of fact reached by courts below when no legal contention is urged?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with an impugned judgment reducing a sentence where the reasons recorded by the High Court are tenable?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order will dispose of (i) Criminal Petition No.94-R of 1984 filed by the accused /convicts namely, (1) Muhammad Khan, ('2) Sabir Hussain sons of Talib Hussain, and (3)
Khan Beg son of Fateh Muhammad against their convictions and sentences and (ii) Criminal Petition No.9a-11 of 1484 filed by Nazar Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain for enhancement of the sentence of the afore mentioned accused/ respondents, who are three respondents in the said petition.
2. Muhammad Khan, Sabir Hussain and Khan Beg petitioners in Criminal Petition No.94-R of 1984, were accused alongwith some other, of the double murder of Muhammad Nishan and Muhammad Sharif (Foot Constable) and were sent up for trial. The evidence produced against them by the prosecution consists mainly, of the testimony of three eye-witnesses, one of whom at least, namely, Haq Nawaz (P.W.15) is absolutely disinterested. Even the other two eye-witnesses have not been shown to have any hostility against the accused. Their testimony is corroborated by medical evidence, inasmuch as the injuries found on the person of deceased were such as could be caused by firearms carried by the three accused /petitioners.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. He has not urged any legal contention. He only wants us to reappraise the evidence on the record and to reverse findings of facts reached by Courts below. Having gone through the judgments of the Courts below we are not inclined to enter into that exercise. Criminal Petition No.94-R of 1984 is, therefore, dismissed.
4.As for Criminal Petition No.95-R of 1984, we have heard counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court reducing the sentence of the (in the said petition). The learned counsel has not been able to show that the reasons recorded by the High Court for awarding the lesser sentences to the respondents are not tenable.
We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and enhance of sentences awarded to the respondents.
5.This Petition No. 95-R of 1984 is, therefore, also dismissed.