2016 PLP 2123 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ — Appellant Versus MUSTANSAR HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 2123 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Iqbal Hameedur Rahman and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ — Appellant Versus MUSTANSAR HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal trial, (b) Appeal against acquittal |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 2123 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal trial, (b) Appeal against acquittal as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 2123 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Iqbal Hameedur Rahman and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 2123 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ — Appellant Versus MUSTANSAR HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zahid Rana, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in both cases).
- Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in both cases).
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 29.04.2008 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeals Nos. 36 and 37-ATA of 2007)
Joint recovery of dead body on pointation of several accused
Such recovery was inadmissible in evidence.
Prosecution had relied upon last-seen evidence and recovery of the deadbody
Alleged recovery of the deadbody had not been effected at the pointing out of the accused persons because it had already been recovered much before their arrest
Regarding the last-seen evidence all that the prosecution witnesses had stated was that they had seen the accused persons going into a house in the company of deceased but it was not denied that the deadbody of deceased had not been found in the said house but was found in another house
No witness had been produced before the Trial Court, who had seen the accused persons in the company of the deceased entering such other house wherefrom body was recovered
In such circumstances the evidence produced by the prosecution as the last-seen evidence could not in the strict sense be called "last-seen evidence"
In the absence of any other evidence brought on the record to establish culpability of accused persons the High Court had rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against them beyond reasonable doubt
Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Asjad Javed Ghural, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State (in both cases).
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
The facts of this case as well as the evidence produced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the judgments passed by the courts below and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going the record we have observed that in order to prove its case the prosecution had relied upon only two pieces of evidence and they were last-seen evidence and recovery of the deadbody. The alleged recovery of the deadbody was admittedly a joint recovery which is inadmissible in evidence. Apart from that the alleged recovery of the deadbody had not been effected at the pointing out of the private respondents because the deadbody had already been recovered much before the arrest of the said respondents. As regards the last-seen evidence all that the prosecution witnesses had said in that regard was that they had seen the private respondents going into the house of one Jameel Lodhi in the company of Farah Mushtaq deceased but it is not denied that the deadbody of the deceased had not been found in the house of Jameel Lodhi and the same had been found in the house of one Abdullah Arain. No witness had been produced before the trial court who had seen the private respondents entering the house of Abdullah Arain in the company of the deceased. In these circumstances the evidence produced by the prosecution as the last-seen evidence could not in the strict sense be called last-seen evidence. In the absence of any other evidence brought on the record to establish culpability of the private respondents the High Court had concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against them beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances of the case mentioned above we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said conclusion reached by the High Court. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The bail bonds and sureties of the private respondents shall stand discharged. MWA/M-62/SC Appeal dismissed.