DILBER HUSSAIN And Another vs AHMAD ALI And Other
This matter arises from a criminal petition for special leave to appeal filed against the acquittal of a respondent and enhancement of sentences, alongside a jail petition filed against a conviction and sentence, both directed against the same judgment of the High Court. The core legal question involves the propriety of the High Court's judgment regarding conviction, sentence, and acquittal, and whether grounds exist for interference by the Supreme Court through reappraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court held that no legal flaw exists in the impugned judgment and declined to reappraise the evidence, as the High Court had adequately dealt with all aspects of the case. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused in both petitions. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings or reappraise evidence in the absence of a substantial legal flaw in the High Court's judgment.
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence to interfere with a High Court judgment when no legal flaw is pointed out?
- Is leave to appeal granted against a High Court judgment that has already dealt with all aspects of the case?
- Can sentences be enhanced or an acquittal overturned without demonstrating a substantial error in the impugned judgment?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order will dispose of
(i) Crl. P.S.L.A. No. 156/85 filed by Dilber Hussain complainant against the acquittal of the respondent No.2, and for the enhancement of sentences of respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 5; and
(ii) Jail Petition No.31-R of 1985, filed by Ahmad A.I petitioner through Jail, against his conviction and sentence; as both the petitions are directed against the same judgment of the High Court dated 11-2-1985.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (in Cr. P.S.L.A. No. 156 of 1985). He has not been able to point out any flaw in the impugned judgment. All that he wants is reappraisal of evidence. We are in respectful agreement with the High Court and do not, therefore: consider it a fit case for grant of leave.
3. We have also considered the impugned judgment in the light of the grounds submitted by Ahmad A.I accused-petitioner in his Jail Petition (No.31-R/85). We are of the view that the High Court has already dealt with all aspects of the case and the matter does not need any further consideration.
Leave is therefore refused- in both the petitions.