MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence under section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Ghulam Shah. The petitioner was originally tried by the Sessions Judge, Attock, convicted, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine and the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference was warranted in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no question of law of public importance was raised and declining to undertake a reappraisal of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not normally reappraise evidence in a criminal petition where concurrent findings of lower courts are challenged and no substantial question of law of public importance is involved.
- Will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal petition against concurrent findings of lower courts?
- Does a petition challenging concurrent factual findings without raising a question of law of public importance warrant leave to appeal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304 Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal arises from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 15-4-1989.
2. The petitioner was charged under section 302 P.P.C. For the murder of Ghulam Shah. He was tried by the Sessions Judge, Attock, who vide his order dated 26-2-1981, convicted him under section 304 Part II P.P.C, and sentenced him to seven years' R.I. And a fine of Rs, 2,000 or in default to six months' further R.I. The fine on realization was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. The benefit of the provision of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Was also allowed to him. In the High Court, on appeal by the petitioner his conviction and sentence was maintained as per order dated 15-4-1989.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned ordeRs, We, however, do not find any substance in the petition inasmuch as no question of law of public importance has been raised therein. All that the learned counsel for the petitioner wants is to reappraise the evidence which, in the circumstances of the case, we decline to undertake.
4. The petition is thus dismissed.