1982 PLP 683 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 683 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Granted to consider whether, in circumstances of case, High Court justified in disbelieving a portion of dying declaration and acquitting accused implicated in such portion while believing remaining portion for basing conviction of co-accused without any independent evidence corroborating such portion of dying declaration.-Leave to appeal. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 683 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 683 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Granted to consider whether, in circumstances of case, High Court justified in disbelieving a portion of dying declaration and acquitting accused implicated in such portion while believing remaining portion for basing conviction of co-accused without any independent evidence corroborating such portion of dying declaration.-Leave to appeal. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 683 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. B. Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmad kadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 10th February, 1982.
- M. B. Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmad kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 10-(-1979, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1056 of 1977, dated 10-6-1979). -- Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Granted to consider whether, in circumstances of case, High Court justified in disbelieving a portion of dying declaration and acquitting accused implicated in such portion while believing remaining portion for basing conviction of co-accused without any independent evidence corroborating such portion of dying declaration.-[Leave to appeal]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. B. Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmad kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 10th February, 1982. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑Muhammad Rafiq petitioner was tried along with Liaqat Ali co‑accused, for the murder of Farzand Ali. The learned trial Judge (Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh) convicted both of them under section 302, P. P. C. Muhammad Rafiq petitioner was sentenced to death while Liaqat Ali co‑accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. At the trial the prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of Mumtaz Ali (P. W. 14) and Taj Muhammad (P. W. 15) ; two dying declara tions made by F4rzand Ali (deceased) (Exhs. P. J. and P. K. respectively) ; the first was recorded by Muhammad Ali, S. H. O. (P. W. 17) and the second was recorded about 1J hours later by Muhammad Khan (P. W. 9) a Magis trate ; recovery of .32 bore pistol (P. 10) from Muhammad Rafiq petitioner which matched with the four empties recovered from the spot ; motive and the medical evidence.
3. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the first dying declaration (Exh. P., J.) recorded by the S. H. O. but, relying on the second dying declaration (Exh. P. K.) ; testimony of the eye‑witnesses and the motive, convicted both the accused. The High Court while deciding the appeal, did not rely either on the eye‑witnesses or on the recovery evidence. It also disbelieved the first dying declaration recorded by the S. H. O. and observed that the trial Court had rightly discarded it. It, however, relied on earlier portion of the second dying declaration (Exh. P. K.) and maintained the conviction of Muhammad Rafiq thereon but reduced his sentence from death to imprisonment for life and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr. P. C. to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. But disbelieving the remaining portion of the same dying declaration (Exh. P K) which related to Liaqat Ali co‑accused (who is respondent in the connected Criminal Petition No. 374 of 1979 filed by the complainant) acquitted him (i.e. Liaqat Ali).
4. Leave is granted in this case to consider whether, in the circum stances of this case the High Court was justified in disbelieving a portion of the dying declaration (Exh. P. K.) and acquitting the accused implicated in that portion, while believing the remaining portion of the same dying declara tion for basing the conviction of the co‑accused (petitioner herein) without any independent evidence corroborating that portion of the dying declaration. Leave granted.