2020 PLP 319 (SCMR)
Mst. MIR ZALAI — Appellant Versus GHAZI KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 319 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Gulzar Ahmed and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MIR ZALAI — Appellant Versus GHAZI KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 319 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 319 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Gulzar Ahmed and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 319 (SCMR) (Mst. MIR ZALAI — Appellant Versus GHAZI KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Talat Mahmood Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Altaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Waqar Ahmed, Additional Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 29.09.2011, passed by the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench on Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 06 of 2011)
S. 302(b)
Qatl-i-amd
Unreliable eye-witnesses
Occurrence took place after dark and no independent proof had been produced by the prosecution regarding availability of electric light at the spot
Circumstances in which the FIR had been lodged were quite suspicious and the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court were admittedly chance witnesses who had failed to establish the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time
In order to fill such lacuna the prosecution had relied upon the statement of a prosecution witness but the reason provided by him was not supported by the reason statedly found by the investigating officer during the investigation
Both the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution had claimed that while handling the deceased their clothes had been smeared with the blood of the deceased but admittedly no such blood-stained clothes of the said eye-witnesses had been secured or produced
In these circumstances the High Court had concluded that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were not reliable and in all likelihood they had not witnessed the murder in issue
Such conclusion reached by the High Court was not open to any exception
Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed. Waqar Ahmed, Additional Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
The facts of this case as well as the evidence produced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the judgments passed by the courts below and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that the occurrence in this case had taken place after dark and no independent proof had been produced by the prosecution regarding availability of electric light at the spot. The circumstances in which the FIR had been lodged in this case were quite suspicious and the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution before the trial court were admittedly chance witnesses who had failed to establish the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time. In order to fill that lacuna the prosecution had relied upon the statement of one Zahid (PW10) but the reason provided by him was not supported by the reason statedly found by the investigating officer during the investigation. Both the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution had claimed that while handling Afsar Khan deceased their clothes had been smeared with the blood of the deceased but admittedly no such blood-stained clothes of the said eye-witnesses had been secured or produced. In these circumstances the High Court had concluded that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were not reliable and in all likelihood they had not witnessed the murder in issue. In the above mentioned peculiar circumstances of this case we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said conclusion reached by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The bail bonds and sureties of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall stand discharged. MWA/M-67/SC Appeal dismissed.