1972 SCMR 12 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑.Petitioner Versus BASHIR AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1972 SCMR 12 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑.Petitioner Versus BASHIR AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 SCMR 12 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 SCMR 12 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 SCMR 12 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑.Petitioner Versus BASHIR AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wall Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nazir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court (Eitzaz Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1‑5.
- Date of hearing : 1st November 1971.
- Khawaja Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate -on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court, Lahore, dated the 14th January 1971, in Criminal Appeal No. 856 of 1969). Penal Code (XLY of 1860), S. 302 and Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58‑Murder‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court‑Grounds raised pertaining merely to question of appreciation of evidence‑Leave refused. Khawaja Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate -on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The High Court has set aside the convictions and sentences passed on the respondents under section 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. for the murder of their co‑villager Ali Ahmad. On a detailed analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the plea of defence raised by the accused the learned Judges observed :‑ "The above discussion clearly highlights the inability of the prosecution to reconcile the various points arising from the evidence which it is obvious are most material to the case. The prosecution story is also wide open to the defence suggestion that the deceased while coming on a bicycle had been killed by some unknown assailants who had thrown his dead body in the watercourse to conceal the evidence of the crime and that after the dead body and the bicycle of the deceased had been recovered and the assailants could not be traced in spite of effort made with the help of trackers, the appellants had been implicated on mere suspicion. It will be hazardous to rest conviction of the appellants particularly on a capital charge on the evidence as we have‑heard." Muhammad Hussain, private complainant; 'seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. The grounds raised, however; go to appreciation of evidence which doss not fall within the ambit of Article 58 of the Constitution. We further find that according to the site plan the two eye‑witnesses could not have seen the occurrence as claimed by them during the trial. They were at a distance of 60‑70 karams when they allegedly saw the accused persons running away to their Dera towards the North of the field where the deceased was done to death. Between that field and the point where from the eye‑witnesses saw the occurrence there was a culvert and the bank of a canal distributor. Both these features were at a higher level from the path along which the eye‑witnesses were corning. The killing and dragging of the body of the deceased across the bank of the distributory thus could not be visible to the eye‑witnesses. There were also sugarcane fields in between which cut their view. The statements made by the eye‑witnesses that they had seen the respondents fleeing towards their dera after dragging the dead body of Ali Ahmad towards the khal was thus open to grave doubt. In the circumstances no proper case is made out for re‑ examination of evidence by this Court. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave refused.