Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1989 MLD 2826

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE STATE

Citation1989 MLD 2826
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Revisions Nos. 33 and 175 of 1988
Date1988-04-02
Judge(s)Sh. Riaz Ahmad
ResultN/A

ORDER

1. The petitioner was tried by a Magistrate on the charge under section 304-A, P.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 11-10-1984, the learned Magistrate, found the petitioner guilty on. The said charge and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000 or in default to suffer another term of six months' R.I. An appeal was taken against the aforesaid judgment and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence from two years to one year's R.I. And similarly the fine was also reduced from Rs.15,000 to Rs.10,000.

2. This revision is directed against both the aforesaid judgment and P.W.4 urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact, it was someone else. Who was driving the wagon and the petitioner has been falsely roped in. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the defence evidence in this case was more reliable.

3. I have perused the record and both the judgments. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail, inasmu ch as, one of the D.Ws. Entered in the .Witness-box who was directed to do so by an Advocate. Similarly, the statement of the other D.W. Also does not inspire confidence and the said testimony was rightly rejected by the Courts below.

4. Adverting to the prosecution case, the eye-witnesses have been produced who were following the petitioner on a bicycle, when they were going to Chhanga Manga. Nothing has been brought on the record to suggest that the prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner. In fact he has been dealt with leniently. In my view, prima facie, miscarriage of justice has taken place by sentencing the petitioner to suffer only one year's R.I. Accordingly, in exercise of suo motu powers, a notice is hereby issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why sentence awarded to him be not enhanced.

5. SA./M-1266/L Suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence issued

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch