2003 PLP 868 (SCMR)
ALI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 868 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 868 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 868 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 868 (SCMR) (ALI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 4-7-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No.867 of 1996 and Murder Reference No.244 of 1996).
S. 302
Recovery of weapon of offence by itself without any other corroborative evidence is not a substantial piece of evidence.
S.302
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Recovery of weapon of offence by itself was not a substantial piece of evidence without any other corroborative evidence
Evidence of the prosecution witness that he had seen the accused on the fateful day carrying a hatchet was not sufficient for holding the case against accused having been proved beyond reasonable doubt
Said prosecution witness did not even state that the hatchet present in the Court was the same which the accused was carrying
Extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused was of no credence having been made before two persons at the same time
Finding of High Court about the case being of no evidence did not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence
Leave to appeal was refused to complainant by the Supreme Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
The respondent was tried for murder of Muhammad Riaz by the learned Additional District Judge, Shorkot who through judgment, dated 15-10-1996, convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. and awarded him death sentence. He was also further directed to pay Rs.25,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo four months' S.I. In appeal filed by the respondent-convict and murder reference, the learned Judges of the High Court through the impugned judgment set aside the said conviction and acquitted him by holding that there was no evidence available against the respondent on the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition maintained that evidence of P.W.5 to the effect that he had seen the respondent carrying hatchet on the fateful day which was allegedly used in the offence coupled with the recovery of the said hatchet and evidence of extra judicial confession was sufficient to prove the case against the respondent, therefore, conviction recorded by the trial Court and award of sentence of death was legally justified.
3. We have examined the impugned judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court and the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case to ascertain whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable shadow of doubt the guilt of the respondent. It may be mentioned here that recovery of weapon of offence by itself without any other corroborative evidence was not a substantial A piece of evidence, The evidence of P.W.5 to the effect that he had seen the respondent on the fateful day carrying hatchet was also of not evidence of the nature to hold that the case against the respondent had been, proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. The extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the respondent was B rightly not given any credence having been made before two persons at the same time. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted when questioned that the P. W.5 did not state in the Court that the hatchet present in the Court was the same about which he alleged to have carried by the respondent.
4. After undertaking scrutiny of the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are fully satisfied that the findings of the High Court that it was a case of no evidence does not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is found to be merit less which is hereby dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q./A-242/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused,