MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Muhammad Ramzan, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16-11-1992. The respondent had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence for murder. On appeal, the High Court set aside the respondent's conviction and sentence under Section 302, PPC, due to failure of prosecution proof, while maintaining his conviction and sentences under Section 201, PPC. The complainant challenged the acquittal under Section 302, PPC, before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court observed that the petition was barred by limitation by four days without any sufficient ground shown for condonation of delay. Furthermore, on the merits, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were grounded on a proper appraisal of evidence, adhering to established legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions. Consequently, the leave to appeal was refused and the petition dismissed.
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal can be entertained when filed beyond the period of limitation without sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?
- Whether the High Court's acquittal of an accused under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the appraisal of circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession, warrants interference by the Supreme Court where no legal defect is established?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---This is a petition by Muhammad Ramzan, the complainant in a murder case, seeking leave to appeal from the Lahore High Court's judgment dated 16-11-1992.
Muhammad Mumtaz respondent was tried by the learned Additional .Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for committing the murder of the complainant's brother, namely, Muhammad Afzal; convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death and a fine of Rs,10,000. He was also convicted under section 201, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo 7 years' R.I; and some fine on that count was also imposed on him. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the respondent under section 302, P.P.C. Resultantly, his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. Was set aside. However, his conviction and sentences under section 201, P.P.C. Were not disturbed. The respondent's acquittal from commission of offence under section 302, P.P.C. Is under challenge in this petition.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel. This petition is barred by time by 4 days, and no good ground has been putforth for the condonation of delay. Even on merits the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in these proceedings. The reasons given by the learned Judges for setting aside the respondent's conviction under section 302, P.P.C. Are based on proper appraisal of evidence on the record and the principles enunciated by this Court in respect of circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession.
This petition is, therefore, dismissed and the .