1988 PLP 1602 (SCMR)
MUSHTAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus RAB NAWAZ alias SECURITY and another — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1602 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, S. A. Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus RAB NAWAZ alias SECURITY and another — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1602 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1602 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, S. A. Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1602 (SCMR) (MUSHTAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus RAB NAWAZ alias SECURITY and another — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ali Sheikh,' Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. M. Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 17th November, 1987.
- M.B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ali Sheikh,' Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. M. Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- M. Rafiq Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 20-9-1982 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1334 of 1979).
S.302--Petition for leave to appeal--Acquittal--Accused was acquitted by High Court on a finding that prosecution had failed to bring home guilt to accused beyond any reasonable doubt--Judgment of High Court proceeding on sound principles of law and calling for no interference--Leave to appeal refused. M. Rafiq Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M.B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ali Sheikh,' Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. M. Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1. M. Rafiq Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Date of hearing: 17th November, 1987. S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The respondent was tried by the Additional) Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on the charge of murder of Khurshid Alam deceased under section ‑302, P.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to death with a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default one year A R.I. The judgment of the trial Court was successfully challenged before the High Court and the respondent was acquitted on a finding that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt to him beyond any reasonable doubt, as per impugned judgment.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the judgment of the learned High Court. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding; of the learned High Court that the medical evidence did not furnish corroboration to the ocular evidence, was erroneous. In this regard, the learned High Court found that according to the medical evidence, injury on the chest of the deceased, which was alleged to be the result of second shot, had caused wound measuring 1" x 3/4" and I" with burning and blackening. A shot fired from a distance of 10/12 Karams as stated by Imam Din, P.W.11, or even from a distance of four yards as stated by Mushtaq Ahmad, P.W.10, could not have caused burning and blackening. Admittedly, distance of 12 Karams would be near about 20 yards and the finding of the learned High Court on this point is, therefore, unassailable. Reference to the Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 1975 Edition, made by the learned counsel was of no help. Admittedly there were two eye‑witnesses in the case, namely Mushtaq Ahmad complainant, who is the brother of the deceased and Imam Din, P.W.11, who, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was an independent witness. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to the cross‑examination of Imam Din to successfully show that he could not be placed on a high pedestal of the category of an independent witness.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court, we are satisfied that the judgment of the learned High Court has proceeded on sound principles of law and calls for no interference. The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed. M. Y . H . / M‑5121 S Petition dismissed.