2011 PLP 1953 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1953 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tariq Parvez and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1953 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1953 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tariq Parvez and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1953 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in Jail Petition 28 of 2011).
- Muhammad Hassan Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in Criminal Peition No. 72 of 2010).
- Date of hearing: 28th June, 2011.
- TARIQ PARVEZ, J.---Learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner states that the occurrence has taken place on 4-9-2003 at 11-00 a.m. and despite that the Police Station was situated at a distance of only about 1/4 km from the place of occurrence the report for F.I.R. was made on the next day i.e. 5-9-2003 at 10-30 a.m., which reflects adversely on the presence of eye-witnesses; that the complainant party took time for deliberations to involve the petitioner in the offence, because otherwise it was un-witnessed crime. Learned counsel also states that if three witnesses namely Muhammad Ishfaq, Naik Muhammad and Niaz Ali were present at the spot, they could have caught hold of the single accused/petitioner, if not before the occurrence, at least after the occurrence. He added that facts of the case suggest dishonest investigation.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 23-12-2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2005 and Murder Reference No. 204 of 2005).
S. 302
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)
Contentions of the petitioners were that the occurrence had taken place on 4-9-2003 at 11-00 a.m. and despite the Police Station being situated at a distance of only about 1/4 k.m. from the place of occurrence, the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day i.e. 5-9-2003 at 10-30 a.m. which reflected adversely on the presence of eye-witnesses; that the complainant party took time for deliberations to involve the petitioner in the offence, because otherwise it was an un-witnessed crime; that if three witnesses were present at the spot, they could have caught hold of the single accused/petitioner, if not before the occurrence, at least after the occurrence and that facts of the case suggest dishonest investigation
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to reconsider the entire prosecution evidence.
S. 302
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)
Petition for enhancement of sentence
Leave having been granted in connected petition and present petition had arisen out of the same judgment, leave to appeal was also granted in the present petition with direction to club both the appeals together. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Jail Petition No. 28 of 2011 TARIQ PARVEZ, J.
Learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner states that the occurrence has taken place on 4-9-2003 at 11-00 a.m. and despite that the Police Station was situated at a distance of only about 1/4 km from the place of occurrence the report for F.I.R. was made on the next day i.e. 5-9-2003 at 10-30 a.m., which reflects adversely on the presence of eye-witnesses; that the complainant party took time for deliberations to involve the petitioner in the offence, because otherwise it was un-witnessed crime. Learned counsel also states that if three witnesses namely Muhammad Ishfaq, Naik Muhammad and Niaz Ali were present at the spot, they could have caught hold of the single accused/petitioner, if not before the occurrence, at least after the occurrence. He added that facts of the case suggest dishonest investigation.
2. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, leave to appeal is granted to re-consider the entire prosecution evidence. Criminal Petition No. 72 of 2011
3. Since leave has been granted in the connected petition and this petition has been filed for enhancement of the sentence arising out of the same judgment, therefore, leave to appeal is also granted in this petition with direction to club both the appeals together. M.A.K./M-63/SC Leave granted.