MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs GHULAM QADIR and another
The petitioner, brother of the deceased, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had set aside the respondent's conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code and altered it to one under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in accepting the defence version of extreme sustained provocation based on the statements of the accused and his daughter. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no violation of law or principle in accepting the defence version on the evidence available, and declined to undertake a re-appraisal of evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily re-appraise evidence in a criminal matter where the High Court has reasonably appreciated the evidence to find grave and sudden or sustained provocation.
- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence to interfere with a High Court judgment altering a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Does acceptance of the defence version of sustained provocation by the High Court warrant interference when no principle of law is violated?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, a brother of the deceased Muhammad Ejaz, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19-10-1987, whereby the conviction of the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. Was set aside and altered to one under section 304, Part I, P.P.C., and the sentence already undergone was considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
2. Ghulam Oadir, respondent No,1 was tried for having caused the murder of Muhammad Ejaz on 29th of March, 1985 in a street within the limits of Police Station 'Saddar, Attock' on the suspicion that he was maintaining illicit relations with his daughter Mst. Shakeela. The prosecution case was that it was an unprovoked murder, out in the street when Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Ejaz were taking their bullocks to the fields. The defence version was somewhat different and it has been described at great length by the convict himself in his statement before the Court. In support his daughter Mst. Shakcela also appeared.
3. If the statement of the convict and that of his daughter is given any credence, it would be a case of extreme sustained provocation. The High Court has in the light of evidence on record accepted their version and we do not consider that in doing so the Court has violated any provision or any principle of law. Hence it will be a case of re-appraisal of evidence which is not undertaken.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. 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.