SCMR 2025

2025 SCMR 562 (PLP)

JANNAT IQBAL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHURSHAD and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Crl.P.L.A. No. 1-P of 2015, decided on 7th October, 2024.
Honorable Judges
Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2025 SCMR 562 (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ
Parties JANNAT IQBAL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHURSHAD and another — Respondents
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 SCMR 562 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 SCMR 562 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 SCMR 562 (PLP) (JANNAT IQBAL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHURSHAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Iltaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (video link Peshawar).
  • Abdul Fayyaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (video link Peshawar along with Petitioner in person).

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the judgment dated 08.12.2014 passed by Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) in Cr.A. No. 33-M of 2013).

Ss. 324 & 337-D

Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13

Attempt to qatl-i-amd and jaifah

Reappraisal of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Determination of injuries

Appellant/injured complainant was aggrieved of acquittal of respondent/accused by High Court setting aside his conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court

Validity

Respondent was single accused and had caused multiple injuries on the vital part of appellant/injured complainant, which were supported by medical evidence and also corroborated by recovery of dagger, coupled with reports of Chemical Examiner which were positive

There were sufficient evidences in shape of statement of injured witness and other supporting evidence

There was nothing on record in shape of statement of any surgeon or Radiologist which could indicate that injury extended into body cavity of injured where vital organ laid

Supreme Court set aside conviction under section 337-D, P.P.C., but maintained the ones under section 324 P.P.C. and under Section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, passed by Trial Court

Supreme Court reduced the sentence awarded to respondent/accused to sentence already undergone

Appeal was allowed.

Judgment & Decree

SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.

The respondent namely Muhammad Khurshad who is present in the Court and is represented by his learned counsel was tried in case FIR No.195 of 2012 dated 23.07.2012 under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.). After a regular trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabal, Swat convicted the respondent as under:- a. Under Section 324 P.P.C. to undergo RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs. 10.000/. and in default thereof to further under go SI for three months. b. Under Section 337-D P.P.C. to undergo RI for one-year along with Arsh which shall be 1/3rd of the Diyat and he shall be kept in confinement till payment. c. Under Section 13 AO to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.5000/- or in default thereof to suffer one-month S.I. The appeal filed by him was allowed by the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat through the impugned judgment dated 08.12.2014. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal filed by Jannat lqbal, the complainant/injured of this case.

2. We have issued notice to the respondent on 07.07.2021 and thereafter, he appeared before this Court and a counsel at State expense namely Mr. Abdul Fayyaz, ASC was appointed to represent him as he is not in a position to engage his counsel, and according to him, he will rely on the arguments addressed by the learned ASC appointed at State expense.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, we have observed that the occurrence took place at 06:20 PM, and medical examination was conducted on the same day at 07:30 PM through Police, and report was lodged at 10:00 PM. So, there is no conscious delay in reporting the matter to the Police, as prior to that, the injured was shifted to the hospital in order to save his life. We observed that, he received six injuries caused by sharp edged weapon, on his vital part which were attributed to the respondent namely Muhammad Khurshad, who gave blows with dagger on the person of Jannat Iqbal (petitioner) upon a very pity matter which is mentioned in the FIR. We have gone through the impugned judgment and observed that the High Court did not discuss or consider the statement of petitioner/complainant/injured and only discussed the evidence of the remaining two eye-witnesses and found them chance etc., and extended benefit of doubt to the respondent. When confronted, learned counsel for the respondent conceded that the main evidence in this case is the statement of the complainant/injured and his statement was not discussed/considered and without discussing his statement, the acquittal of the respondent is not sustainable. However, according to him, as respondent is facing trial and further proceedings in difference courts since 2012; hence, he needs a lenient view. It is a circumstance that the petitioner is a single accused and he caused multiple injuries on the vital part of Jannat Iqbal (injured) which is supported by the medical evidence and also corroborated by the recovery of dagger, coupled with reports of Chemical Examiner which are positive. Even if the evidence of the remaining witnesses is excluded, there are sufficient evidences in the shape of the statement of the injured witness and other supporting evidence, mentioned above. We have called a report from the concerned jail Superintendent, according to which, the petitioner has already served out about 10 months and 02 days in the jail. We have also gone through the statement of the Medical Officer and observed that nothing on record in the shape of statement of any Surgeon or Radiologist which could indicate that the injury extended into the body cavity of the injured where vital organ lies. So, the conviction passed by the Trial Court under Section 337-D P.P.C. was not sustainable. Consequently, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. However, the conviction of the respondent only under Section 324 P.P.C. and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 passed by the Trial Court is restored, however, his sentence in both the offences is reduced to already undergone (10 months and 02 days). MH/J-1/SC Order accordingly.