1988 PLP 11 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAZAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 11 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAZAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 11 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 11 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 11 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAZAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 20 March, 1985 in Criminal Appeal 634 of 1983).
S. 302--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Same arguments were urged as were advanced before Appellate Court and were rightly rejected--No case made out for interference--Leave to appeal refused.
S. 302--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Appreciation of evidence--Interested witness--Conviction under S. 302, P.P.C. based on motive, medical evidence and testimony of deceased's father who had no enmity with accused--Plea that motive could not be proved and testimony of interested witness should not have been believed, not entertained as same arguments were advanced before Appellate Court but were rightly rejected--No case having been made out for interference, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Razaq petitioner. He was tried for the murder of Muhammad Salim deceased and the trial Court convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus fine. In appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore a learned Single Judge maintained his conviction and sentence. The petitioner was stated to be armed with a Chhuri with which he caused a single injury in the abdomen of the deceased. The occurrence took place on 14th September, 1981 at 12-30 p.m. in the chowk of the village and the FIR was promptly lodged at 2-45 p.m. on the same day by the father of the deceased Jan Muhammad P.W. The motive is that the petitioner and the deceased had their houses in the same lane. The deceased had blocked the flow of water during rains in this street by putting some wood pieces in front of his house. The deceased told the petitioner a few days before the occurrence to remove the wood pieces upon which the petitioner abused him. However, due to the intervention of the respectables he removed the wood pieces from in front of his house but retained grudge against the deceased. On the fateful day when the deceased was returning to his house alongwith his father the petitioner is stated to have raised a Lalkara and inflicted a Chhuri blow in the abdomen of the deceased. According to the medical evidence the deceased had this stab injury on his abdomen. The Courts below have not relied upon the recovery evidence but have placed reliance on the testimony of Jan Muhammad P.W. father of the deceased who had no enmity with the petitioner. The motive has been believed by the appellate Court. Learned counsel before us attempted to argue that motive could not be proved and that Jan Muhammad P.W. being father of the deceased was an interested witness. Therefore, he should have not been believed. We have heard learned counsel at some length. These arguments had been advanced even at the appellate stage but were rightly rejected. In our considered opinion no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. M . I ./ M-208 / S Petition dismissed.