2022 PLP 888 (SCMR)
ROOH ULLAH and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 888 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Maqbool Baqar, Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ROOH ULLAH and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 888 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 888 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Maqbool Baqar, Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 888 (SCMR) (ROOH ULLAH and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Talat Mahmood Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 06.10.2016 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 602-P of 2013)
Ss. 302(b) & 324
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd
Statements of eye-witnesses that included an injured were in comfortable unison both on the salient features of the case as well as matters collateral thereto
No doubt, injuries on the person of a witness were not a passport into the realm of truth, however, the counsel for accused had not been able to point out even a single circumstance to suspect testimony of the injured eye-witness
Incident, which was a daylight affair, was reported with remarkable promptitude followed by examination of the injured as well as autopsy, circumstances that cumulatively excluded possibility of consultations or deliberations
Investigating Officer's failure to recover a weapon from one of the accused did not overshadow the preponderance of prosecution evidence that included recovery from the principal accused
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and convictions and sentences passed against the accused persons were maintained. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Tarifullah, 55/60, and Muhammad Rawail, 20, were shot dead on 11.06.2007 at 5:00 p.m. within the precincts of Police Station Razakhel, District Nowshera, in the backdrop of an ongoing feud over a piece of property; Tariq Azam PW survived the assault to report the incident to the police at 7:25 p.m; the petitioners claimed trial before a learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Nowshera that culminated into their conviction both on the charges of homicide as well as murderous assault vide judgment dated 31.10.2013; they were sentenced to imprisonment for life as well as 5-years rigorous imprisonment, respectively; co-accused Shahid, arrayed through supplementary statement, was, however, acquitted from the charge, maintained by the High Court, vide impugned judgment dated 06.10.2016, vires whereof, are being assailed by the petitioners on the grounds that prosecution case, fraught with contradictions and doubts, merited outright rejection, in the face of an unproved motive. Prosecution's failure to effect recovery of weapon from Rooh Ullah petitioner yet another predicament faced by the prosecution and, thus, evidence furnished by the injured PW was far from being the whole truth and, thus, was not worthy of implicit reliance, concluded the learned counsel. Contrarily, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for complainant defended the impugned judgment.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. We have gone through the statements of eye-witnesses that include an injured to find them in a comfortable unison both on the salient features of the case as well as matters collateral thereto. No doubt, injuries on the person of a witness are not a passport into the realm of truth, however, the learned counsel has not been able to point out even a single circumstance to suspect testimony of Azam Tariq PW. Incident, a daylight affair, was reported with a remarkable promptitude followed by examination of the injured as well as autopsy, circumstances that cumulatively exclude possibility of consultations or deliberations. Investigating Officer's failure to recover a weapon from Rooh Ullah does not overshadow the preponderance of prosecution evidence that includes recovery from the principal accused. Bald denials alone do not override the prosecution evidence, rightly relied by the courts below. Petition fails. Leave refused. MWA/R-1/SC Petition dismissed.