2021 PLP 1472 (SCMR)
SALEEM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1472 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Faez Isa, Sajjad Ali Shah and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SALEEM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1472 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1472 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Faez Isa, Sajjad Ali Shah and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1472 (SCMR) (SALEEM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in both cases).
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Qatl-i-amd
Petitions for leave to appeal challenging acquittal of accused persons
Person who had been injured by receiving a bullet injury in the incident, and thus establishing his presence at the crime scene and as an eye-witness, did not come forward to testify nor was summoned to do so, despite the fact that he was known and a resident of the same village in which the complainant resided, which cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case
Another ground which had prevailed with the High Court in acquitting the accused persons was that the medical report stated that the bullet injuries on the deceased showed charring of the wounds, suggesting that he was shot at from a close range, whereas the ocular account narrated by the purported eye-witnesses contradicted same
Moreover, the motive put forward by the prosecution was also attracted to the purported eye-witnesses, but surprisingly they did not receive a single injury at the hands of any of the three assailants, which would further suggest that they were not present at the crime scene
Petitions for leave to appeal challenging acquittal of accused persons by the High Court were dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI FAEZ ISA, J. Ajmal Khan was murdered on 6th September, 2007 and in respect of his murder three persons were nominated, namely, Pasand Khan, Rad Ali and Khair Dil alias Raidal. Pasand Khan was arrested and tried first, and he was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, the appeal against his conviction was allowed by a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court and he was acquitted vide judgment dated 4th February, 2011 (which is the subject of Criminal Petition No. 18-P/2011). The other two accused, namely, Rad Ali and Khair Dil alias Raidal were tried separately after their arrest and both were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and their acquittal was maintained in appeal by the High Court through judgment dated 12th June, 2014 (which is the subject of Criminal Petition No.74-P/2014.
2. A number of reasons prevailed with the learned Judges in acquitting the respondents. The person who had been injured by receiving a bullet injury in the same incident, and thus establishing his presence at the crime scene and as an eye witness, namely, Hamesh Gul, did not come forward to testify nor was summoned to do so, despite the fact that he was known and a resident of the same village in which the complainant resided, which cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case. Another ground which had prevailed with the learned Judges was that the medical report stated that the bullet injuries on the deceased showed charring of the wounds, suggesting that he was shot at from a close range, whereas the ocular account narrated by the purported eye-witnesses contradicted this. Moreover, the motive put forward by the Prosecution was also attracted to the purported eye-witnesses, but surprisingly they did not receive a single injury at the hands of any of the three assailants, which would further suggest that they were not present at the crime scene. The learned counsel for the complainant was not able to show that these points were contrary to the record to be able to succeed in setting aside the two impugned judgments acquitting the respondents. Consequently, leave to appeal is declined and these petitions are dismissed. MWA/S-43/SC Petitions dismissed. * Received in 2021