1994 PLP 79 (SCMR)
MUKHTAR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 79 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | MUKHTAR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 79 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 79 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 79 (SCMR) (MUKHTAR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.D. Tahir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the Judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25‑10‑1992 in Cr. Appeal No. 1137 of 1988). ‑‑‑‑S. 392‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention that the identity of the accused as the participant in the occurrence could not be said to have been established beyond doubt in view of the evidence available on record. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑The petitioner alongwith two others was tried by the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Lahore, on a charge under section 392, read with section 397, Pakistan Penal Code. The learned trial Court acquitted the co‑accused but convicted the petitioner on the said charge and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of a period of eight years. In addition he was also asked to pay fine. He filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the High Court. A learned Division Bench in the High Court modified his conviction to one under section 392 alone and reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to one for a period of five years. He seeks leave to appeal from this Court. 2 The allegations against the petitioner were that he together with the co‑accused robbed on the point of a dagger Malik Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W.2) of a sum of Rs.50,275 as the latter was standing at the bus‑stand in order to catch a bus for Sharaqpur. Immediately after the occurrence the petitioner was stated to have run away with the money. The occurrence was reported at Police Station Mandi Fiazabad on the same evening by him at 6‑50 p.m.
3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and denied that he had robbed Malik Mushtaq Ahmad of any money.
4. The prosecution rested its case against the petitioner on the testimony of Malik Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W.2) and Nazir Ahmad (P.W. 1) was accompanying Malik Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W.2). The trial Court as well as the High Court found their testimony credible enough to support the conviction of the petitioner on the charge of robbery.
5. In support of this petition it is contended that even though at the trial both Malik Mushtaq Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad stated they were acquainted with the petitioner prior to the occurrence but this was not the position taken by them before the police. In fact from the statement of the Investigating Officer it appeared that the names of the petitioner and his companions were provided to them by one Iqbal. Iqbal was examined by the Court as Court witness and he denied that he was able to identify the petitioner, as one of the robbers. The investigating agency also did not hold any identification parties. In the circumstances it was doubtful if the identity of the petitioner us the participant in the occurrence could be said to have been established.
6. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. N.H.Q./M‑1853/S Leave granted.