MUHAMMAD AKRAM And 4 Others vs The STATE
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which convicted the petitioners for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced them to death. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the petitioners' plea of self-defence. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioners essentially sought a reappraisal of evidence, which is not the function of the Court at the leave-to-appeal stage. Furthermore, the Court determined that the lower courts had already carefully considered and correctly rejected the plea of self-defence. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence, particularly when the lower courts have properly evaluated the defense's arguments.
- Does a plea of self-defence that has been rejected by two lower courts warrant a reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-examine the merits of a self-defence plea if the lower courts have already carefully considered and rejected it?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J,--Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Aslam petitioners were tried alongwith 3 others, inter alia, for offence under section 302, P.P. C. And were sentenced to death.
Their appeal before the High Court failed and their death sentences were confirmed by the High Court.
2.They have now come up to this Court through the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the petitioners counsel at considerable length. The only contention urged by him is that the plea of defence, namely that they committed the murders in exercise of their right of defence of person, had not been correctly considered by the two Courts below.
4. In the first place the contention merely amounts to a request for reappraisal of evidence secondly, after going through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment with the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we feel that the Courts below have carefully considered this contention and have rightly rejected the plea of self-defence. We therefore, find no merit in the petition, which is consequently dismissed.