2002 PLP 1166 (SCMR)
N/A
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1166 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1166 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1166 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1166 (SCMR) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Zulfqar Ali Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑R rd for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑(On appeal from the judgment dated 13‑7‑2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 794 of 1993). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302(b)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art,185(3) ‑‑‑ Ocular testimony furnished by natural witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence‑‑‑No background ‑ of enmity existed between the parties‑‑ Complainant had no motive to implicate the accused falsely in the murder case‑‑‑Complainant who was father of the deceased, had charged only the accused and had not thrown the net wide‑‑‑Substitution in the case of a single accused was a rare phenomenon‑‑‑Complainant could not be expected to have charged an innocent person and spared the real murderer of his son‑‑ Leave to appeal was declined to accused by Supreme Court in circumstances. Nerno for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13‑7‑2001 of a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No.794 of 1993.
2. The petitioner was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang for the murder of one Sajid Hussain and vide judgment dated 22‑12‑1993 was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life as Tazir with benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased within the contemplation of section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. or suffer 6 months' S.I. in default.
3. The F.I.R. discloses at on 22‑2‑1993'at about 2‑00 p.m. while the complainant Nawazish Ali alongwith his son Sajid Hussain deceased and other family members was present in his house there was a nock at the door. Responding to the knock the complainant and his son Sajid Hussain went towards the door. When Sajid Hussain opened the door of the 'Dheohri' the petitioner raising a Lalkara that he would teach him a lesson for demanding back money and belabouring him fired a shot from a revolver at Sajid Hussain as a result of which he lost his life. Motive for the occurrence was that the deceased had advanced a sum of Rs.25,000 as loan to the petitioner and about 4/5 days prior to the occurrence had asked the petitioner to pay back the loan.
4. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court mainly on the ground that the ocular evidence having been furnished by natural witnesses was confidence‑inspiring, it was amply corroborated by the medical evidence and apart from that it was a case of single accused, therefore, the possibility of substitution stood excluded.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution had singularly failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt as the eye‑witnesses were trumped up and the prosecution evidence was not corroborated by any independent evidence.
6. The contentions are misconceived. The ocular evidence has indeed been furnished by natural witnesses whose testimony is corroborated by the medical evidence. There is neither any background of enmity between the parties nor the complainant had any motive to implicate the petitioner falsely in a murder case. The complainant, who is father of the deceased, has charged only the petition and has not thrown the net wide. It is by now well -settled that in case of, a single accused substitution is a rare phenomenon. It does not stand to reason that the complainant had charged an innocent person and spared the real culprit. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave declined. N.H.Q./A‑211 /S Leave refused.