SCMR 2004

2004 PLP 252 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.744-L of 2002; decided on 13th December, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP 252 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ
Parties ANWARUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
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 2004 PLP 252 (SCMR)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 252 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 252 (SCMR) (ANWARUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Malik Anljad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court with Walayat Umer, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 13th December, 2002.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 8-7-2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No.228/J of 2001 by the Lahore High Court, Lahore).

S. 302(b)

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)

Occurrence had taken place in broad-daylight and the F.I.R. was recorded with promptitude

Parties being known to each other prior to the incident, no question of mistaken identity of accused could arise

Eye-witnesses were natural witnesses of the occurrence who had given plausible explanation for their presence at the spot and they had "no reasons for false implication of accused in an offence entailing capital punishment-- Ocular account was corroborated by medical evidence and inspired confidence

No misreading of evidence was pointed out in the case-- Leave to appeal was refused to accused in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

TANVIR ARMED KHAN, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 8-7-2002, whereby criminal appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2 Facts briefly are that FA.R. Nb.333 was got registered at tire instance of Muhammad Iqbal P.W., the brother of the deceased under section 302; P.P.C. at Police Station City Sargodha on 9-7-1999, stating therein that his sister Mst. Safia deceased was earlier married to one. Nisar-ul-Haq who died 4/5 years earlier, leaving behind two sons and two daughters. She was living alongwith her in-laws in the house at Zafar Colony Sargodha. The petitioner, the brother of the deceased husband, used to tease her with bad intention, which factum was conveyed by the deceased on telephone to the complainant who came alongwith Muhammad Arshad. The deceased narrated the whole story whereupon, they boarded a Tonga for the house of the petitioner and reached there. They asked him about the allegations levelled against him. Whereupon the petitioner brought out a gun and fired at her which proved fatal.

3. The petitioner was apprehended on the 11th of July, 1999 and led to the recovery of .12 bore gun. After usual investigation, the challan was submitted. The prosecution examined six witnesses to establish its case. The ocular account has been stated in its material particulars by Muhammad Iqbal P.W.4 and Muhammad Khalil P.W.5. When the petitioner was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., he denied his participation.

4. The learned trial Judge after thrashing the entire evidence brought on record convicted the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for, life with a fine of Rs.1,00,000, half of which was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs, in default whereof to further undergo two years' S,I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., was also accorded. The petitioner filed criminal appeal, which has been dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

5. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the record appended with this petition. It was a broad-daylight occurrence and the F.I.R. was recorded with promptitude. Since the parties were known to each other prior to this incident as such there was no question of mistaken identity. It is true that the ocular account has been witnessed but that fact itself would not be sufficient to discard the testimony of the P.Ws., if it otherwise inspires confidence. They are the natural witnesses and stood test of cross-examination. They have given plausible explanation for their presence at the spot. Nothing has been brought on record why these witnesses would implicate the petitioner in an offence entailing capital punishment. The medical evidence is totally in line with the ocular account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading. The petition is-therefore dismissed and the leave refused: N. H. Q. /A-375/S Leave refused.