1994 PLP 946 (SCMR)
SULTAN AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NASEEM BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 946 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Muhammad Afzal Lone and |
| Parties | SULTAN AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NASEEM BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 946 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 946 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Muhammad Afzal Lone and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 946 (SCMR) (SULTAN AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NASEEM BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Saleem Shahnazi, Advocate instructed by Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 15th June, 1993.
- Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28‑11‑1992 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 365/1990). ‑‑‑‑S. 302/436‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal against acquittal‑‑‑High Court had adopted the correct yardstick for administering the criminal justice and found the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt‑‑‑No misreading of the record or misapplication of the law was found to exist‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 302/436‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal against acquittal‑‑‑High Court had adopted the correct yardstick for administering the criminal justice and found the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt‑‑‑No misreading of the record or misapplication of the law was found to exist‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. M. Saleem Shahnazi, Advocate instructed by Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate for the State. Nemo for Respondent No.l. Date of hearing: 15th June, 1993. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, complainant in a case registered under section 302/436, P.P.C. seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28‑11‑1992 whereby the conviction of the respondent No.l for murdering her husband by putting him on fire was set aside and shoe was acquitted.
2. We find that the High Court's judgment gives good reasons for acquittal and these are: absence of sufficient motive on the part of the respondent to murder her husband; the non‑production of Iftikhar who was instrumental in taking the injured/deceased Muhammad Sharif to the Hospital; the delayed F.I.R. and the burning on the foot of the respondent herself. The respondent had been married to the deceased fifteen years back. She had three children. It also appears that the father of the deceased had married twice, had a number of issues from both the wives and was being prevailed upon by his issues to deal with them fairly and proportionately in the matter of sale of land and distribution of its price. In this background of events and for the reasons recorded, the High Court adopted the correct yardstick for administering the criminal justice and found the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. No misreading of the record or misapplication of the law is found to exist. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. N.H.Q./S‑809/S Leave refused.