1988 PLP 475 (SCMR)
MUNIR AHMAD and others — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 475 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD and others — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 475 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 475 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 475 (SCMR) (MUNIR AHMAD and others — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court with S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 7th October, 1985 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.192 of 1984).
Ss.302/34 & 324--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)- Petition against conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life- Prosecution based on testimony of three eye-witnesses and recovery of blood-stained weapons--No likelihood of false implication No evidence produced in defence--One of accused admitting killing of deceased--Plea of grave and sudden provocation not believed--Held, guilt of petitioners being satisfactorily established they had alre3y been given lesser sentence provided under 5.302, P.P.C.--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners before us are two brothers, namely, Munir Ahmad and Bashir Ahmad. They together with their third brother Nazir Ahmad and father Khushi Muhammad, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari on charges under sections 302 and 307, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Fida Hussain and making a murderous assault upon his nephew, Mazhar Hussain. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Khushi Muhammad but convicted the petitioners of the offence under section 302 read with section 34, and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and' to pay fines of Rs.2,
000. He also convicted Nazir Ahmad of an offence under section 324 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed. Nazir Ahmad also filed an appeal. His conviction maintained but his sentence was reduced. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. According to the prosecution, the petitioners suspected that Fida Hussain was carrying on an intrigue with their sister, Mst.Naziran. On 20-9-1982, at 1 p.m. Fide Hussain was returning to his village with his nephew, Mazhar Hussain and father Nur Muhammad. The petitioners and the co-accused ambushed him on the way. Munir was armed. Khushi Muhammad raised a lalkara whereupon the petitioners struck Fida Hussain with their respective weapons. Mazhar Hussain tried to intervene but he was given a hatchet blow on the head by Nazir Ahmad. Immediately after the occurrence Fida Hussain was taken to the hospital at Vehari where he expired later in the evening. The occurrence was reported at Police Station Vehari (which was 8 miles away) by his father Nur Muhammad at 5.40 p.m on the same day.
3. The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. Munir Ahmad admitted that he had caused the death of Fida Hussain but alleged that he had done so under grave and sudden provocation when he found him in a compromising position with his sister. Bashir Ahmad stated that he was not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. Neither the petitioners nor the co-accused produced any evidence in defence.
4. The case of the prosecution against the petitioners rested upon the testimony of three eye-witnesses, namely, Mazhar Hussain (PW.9), Noor Muhammad (PW.8) and Abdur Razaq (PW.10). Support for their testimony was sought from the recovery of blood-stained weapons at the instance of the petitioners. The trial Court rejected the evidence relating to the recovery of blood-stained weapons. It also discarded the testimony of Noor Muhammad (PW.8) and Abdur Razaq (PW.10) on the ground that there was no satisfactory explanation for their presence at the scene of occurrence. The High Court however thought that the rejection of the recovery evidence and the testimony of the said two eye-witnesses by the trial Court was not based on good grounds. It upheld the conviction of the petitioners.
5. In support of this petition, it is contended that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the finding of the trial Court with regard to the credibility of Noor Muhammad (PW.8) and Abdur Razaq (PW.10) and the recovery evidence. Even if this contention is accepted the testimony of Mazhar Hussain (PW .9) is by itself sufficient to sustain the conviction of the petitioners. We are not impressed with the argument that the injury of Mazhar Hussain was a self-suffered one. It was far too serious to have been inflicted by a friendly hand. There was no reason why Mazhar Hussain should have falsely implicated the petitioners in the case. It may be mentioned that there was no history of previous enmity between the parties.
6. The plea of Munir Ahmad that he killed the deceased when he had found him in compromising position with his sister has been examined by the High Court in detail and has found no merit in it. We find no reason to take a different view in the matter.
7. On the evidence on record, the guilt of the petitioners has been satisfactorily established. They have already been given the lesser sentence provided under section
302. Leave is accordingly refused. M.I. /M-304/S. Leave refused.