ROHANI KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Rohani Khan against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which had maintained his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while reducing his death sentence to life imprisonment, along with convictions under section 307/34. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the guilt of the petitioner for murder and causing injuries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had thoroughly sifted the evidence and that the defense version was implausible in light of the injuries sustained by both sides, establishing a case of premeditation. The petition was accordingly dismissed as the sentence awarded was in accordance with the safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence on questions of fact when the High Court has already thoroughly and correctly sifted the record, absent any misreading or non-reading of evidence.
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence on questions of fact already thoroughly sifted by the High Court?
- Does a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal can be condoned upon sufficient cause?
- Whether the sentence of death can be reduced to life imprisonment based on the facts and circumstances of the case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18-1-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench.
2. ' Petitioner Rohani Khan alongwith his brothers Anwar Khan and Islamuddin were charged for the murder of Muhammad Anwar and causing injuries to Bagh Ali (PW-4), Qasim Ali (PW-5) and Khushi Muhammad (PW-6) on 1-4-1983 at 12 a.m. In the fields of village Chak No,267/HR Police Station Fort Abbas. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Bagh Ali (PW-5), father of the deceased Muhammad Anwar which was recorded by SHO Muhammad Musa (PW-8) at 2 p.m. On the same day. After completion of the investigation, all the accused including the petitioner were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bahawalnagar who, vide his judgment dated 27-10-1984, convicted the petitioner Rohani Khan under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs,4,000 or in default of payment to undergo further R.I. For two years. The petitioner and Anwar Khan were also convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to 7 years' R.I.
3. With fine of Rs,2,000 or in default of payment to suffer further R.I. For one year. Accused Islamuddin was sentenced to fine of Rs,1,000 under section 323, P.P.C. Or in default of payment to suffer R.I. For one year. It was ordered that out of fine, if recovered, Rs,3,000 shall he paid to the heirs of the deceased and Rs,1,500 to the injured P.Ws. In equal shares.
4. ' In appeal before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, vide impugned judgment the conviction under section 302, P.P.C. Of the petitioner Rohani Khan was maintained but his sentence of death was reduced to life imprisonment. The sentences of petitioner and Anwar Khan accused under section 307/34, P.P.C. Were also reduced to 5 years, R.I. The conviction and sentence of Islamuddin accused was not altered. However, the revision of the complainant party was dismissed. The sentences of Rohani Khan petitioner were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also given to him.
5. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the evidence on record thoroughly. Although this petition is barred by 29 days yet we condone the delay. All that the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks is the reappraisal of evidence on the question of fact which in our opinion, the learned Judges of the High Court have thoroughly sifted. The record shows that there are 16 injuries on the complainant side and three injuries on the accused side. The defence version is not plausible and it appears to be a case of premeditation. The sentence awarded to the petitioners by the learned High Court is in accordance with safe administration of criminal justice, We, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.