1998 PLP 226 (SCMR)
SHAKIL AHMED and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR ALI and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 226 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar, Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SHAKIL AHMED and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR ALI and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 226 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 226 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar, Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 226 (SCMR) (SHAKIL AHMED and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR ALI and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Khizar Hayat, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No.245 of 1996 and for Respondent in Cr.P. No.246 of 1996).
- Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar, Advocate instructed by Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No.246‑L of 1996 and for Respondents in Cr.P. No.245‑L of 1996).
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 1997.
- Sheikh Khizar Hayat, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No.245 of 1996 and for Respondent in Cr.P. No.246 of 1996).
- Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar, Advocate instructed by Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No.246-L of 1996 and for Respondents in Cr.P. No.245-L of 1996).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 12‑6‑1996 passed in Criminal Appeal No.131‑92 (MR 287‑92) and Criminal Revision No.92 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Contentions that prosecution version stood contradicted by medical evidence; that prosecution version was not plausible and that recovery of gun after about six days of the arrest of the accused should not have been believed, which emerged from the record, required reappraisal of evidence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.
Sardar Ali convict seeks leave to appeal in Cr. P.L.A. No.246-L of 1996 against the judgment dated 12-6-1996 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby his appeal was partly accepted and death sentence awarded to him was reduced to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained. Shakil Ahmad, complainant in the connected petition (Cr.P.L.A. No.245-L of 1996) has challenged the same judgment of the High Court and seeks enhancement of the sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the convict petitioner argued that the learned Judges in the High Court have disposed of the appeal before them by making general observations without appraising the evidence in its true perspective. It was pointed out that Dr. Najaf Ali Bukhari P.W.4 had noted that blackening was present around the two injuries found on the body of the deceased which would show that the victim was fired at from a close range. As against this, Shakil Ahmad P.W.7/complainant, who had allegedly seen the occurrence stated that Sardar Ali fired at him and Jamil deceased from a distance about 40/45 feet. The prosecution version as such stood contradicted by the medical evidence. Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution version is not plausible as on seeing the accused party coming armed to make the attack, if the deceased/complainant party had tried to escape, would not have stood on the roof top to facilitate the attack. According to him, the recovery of gun after about six days of the arrest of the accused/convict should not have been believed.
3. The aforenoted features emerging from the record appear to require reappraisal of the evidence. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted in both the petitions. N.H.Q./S-5/S Leave granted.