MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Sharif, who, along with two co-accused, Shaukat Ali and Riasat Ali, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Abdul Jabbar, which occurred on July 1, 1981, at the Rahwali Railway Station. The trial court's conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated due to his relationship with the co-accused and that his participation in the alleged occurrence was doubtful. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding that the arguments raised by the petitioner pertained to the appreciation of evidence, a task already performed by the High Court. The Court affirmed that it would not reappraise the evidence in the absence of any demonstrated error of law or fact requiring examination. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal where the High Court has already evaluated it?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere in a conviction based on factual disputes regarding the participation of an accused?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.- This petition for leave to appeal is only by Muhammad Sharif although Shaukat Ali and Riasat Ali were also tried alongwith him for the murder of Abdul Jabbar which took place on 1-7-1981 at 6 a.m. In the 3rd clas bogey of trial at Railway Station, Rahwali, and sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine of Rs, 5,000 each by judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrdnwala.
2. ' On appeal to the Lahore High Court, their conviction and sentence was upheld.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that the petitioner has been roped in because of his relationship with the co-accused.
4. Even, otherwise, his participation in the alleged occurrence, according to the counsel, was very doubtful.
5. ' These are matters of appreciation of evidence which has been done by the High Court.
6. ' We are not going to reappraise the evidence. We don't think there is either any error of law or even of fact which needs examination.