2003 PLP 901 (SCMR)
THE STATE — Petitioner Versus RAFAQAT HUSSAIN SHAH — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 901 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ui-Rehman Ramda_and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ - |
| Parties | THE STATE — Petitioner Versus RAFAQAT HUSSAIN SHAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 901 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 901 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ui-Rehman Ramda_and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ -.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 901 (SCMR) (THE STATE — Petitioner Versus RAFAQAT HUSSAIN SHAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st March; 2002.
- Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 11-4-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No.517 of 2000).
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Petition for leave to appeal against acquittal
Accused had no reason to cause death of the deceased in respect of a matter of divorce between brother of the deceased and his wife
Ocular testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence
Appraisal of evidence by High Court for acquitting the accused did not suffer from any legal infirmity such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence
Impugned judgment, therefore, did not suffer from any illegality
Leave to appeal was consequently refused to the State. Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 11-4-2001 of the Lahore High Court through which on acceptance of appeal filed by the respondent-convict, his conviction under section 302(b). P.P.C. for causing death of Ruqia Bibi and award of sentence of death has been set aside and he has been acquitted of the charge.
2. The respondent was tried for the murder of Ruqia Bibi. According to the F.1.R., motive. as disclosed was that Rafaqat Hussain Shah, respondent and Zia-ur-Rehman, brother of Ruqia Bibi deceased were married in the same family. The wife of Zia-ur-Rehman wanted divorce from him (Zia-ur-Rehman) which was being opposed both by Zia-ur-Rehman and Ruqia Bibi. Refaqat Hussain Shah, respondent allegedly was supporting the wife of Zia-ur-Rehman for getting divorce due to which he allegedly caused the murder of Ruqia Bibi because she was opposing the said divorce.
3. The ocular account was furnished by Inayat Shah (P.W.2) and Shabir Shah (P.W.3). They, though were residents of the same Iliaqa but in different streets. They were admittedly chance witnesses. In the statement made before the police-under section 161, Cr.P.C. by P.W.2 only one injury was attributed to the respondent whereas improvement was made when he appeared in the evidence and deposed that three injuries were inflicted to the deceased.
4. The learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court after examining the evidence of these two witnesses in detail came to the conclusion that their presence in front of the house at the relevant time was highly doubtful.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that in these circumstances, Rafaqat respondent had any reason to go to the extent of causing death of Ruqia Bibi in respect of a matter or divorce between Zia-ur-Rehman brother of Ruqia Bibi and his wife. The ocular testimony of these witnesses does not find corroboration from medical evidence.
6. The appraisal of evidence undertaken by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court for recording findings of acquittal does not suffer from any legal infirmity such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, therefore, in our considered view, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality. Resultantly this petition is dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q./S-199/S Leave refused,