NAZRA and another vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' criminal revision against their conviction and sentence for an offence under section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were convicted by a Judicial Magistrate for attacking the complainant, Muhammad Amir, with a Kassi and Dang, resulting in nine injuries, including an incised wound on the head. The petitioners contended that there was a delay in lodging the First Information Report and questioned the presence of eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the victim provided a detailed account of the occurrence and that the defence's claim of the injuries resulting from a bicycle fall was rightly rejected by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and was also time-barred by two days. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the conviction and sentence.
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred?
- Can a court reject a defence version attributing injuries to a fall from a bicycle when the victim provides a detailed account of an assault?
- Does the presence of simple injuries and an incised wound on the head support a conviction under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15 October, 1988 whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were tried for an offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. And the Judicial Magistrate Sargodha convicted both of them under section 324/34, P.P.C. Sentencing them to two years' R.I. Plus fine each. On appeal the conviction and sentence were maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge. Subsequently the criminal revision of the petitioners was dismissed by the High Court as stated above. Hence the present petition.
3. ' The injured person is Muhammad Amir. The motive is that some time ago the said Muhammad Amir had beaten Nazra petitioner and his mother. It was in this background that the petitioners armed with Kassi and Dang attacked Muhammad Amir and inflicted injuries to him. According to the medical evidence the victim had received 9 injuries at the hands of the petitioners in the form of incised and contused wounds as well as abrasions. Injury No,1 was on the head and this was an incised injury caused with sharp-edged weapon. The rest were simple. Some of the injuries were kept under observation but subsequently all were declared as simple.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that there was delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. And that the eye-witnesses were not present at the time of the occurrence. But these arguments of learned counsel have no force. Muhammad Amir victim was cross-examined at length and has given a detailed account of the occurrence as to how he was caused injuries by both the petitioners. The defence version was that he had received these injuries due to fall from the bicycle. This defence version was rightly rejected. This petition is even barred by two days.
5. ' After hearing learned counsel we are of the view that it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. The petition is therefore dismissed on merits as well as barred by time.