1998 PLP 524 (SCMR)
BILAL AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 524 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | BILAL AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 524 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 524 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 524 (SCMR) (BILAL AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Khizar Hayat, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th September, 1995.
- Sh. Khizar Hayat, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on- Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 6‑6‑1995 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1993/BWP). ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contentions were that eye‑witnesses being the father and brother of the deceased, their testimony which was interested and partial needed corroboration which was lacking, that no crime empty could be recovered as a substantial piece of circumstantial evidence, that it was hard to believe that the accused would venture to catch the deceased lady on such an odd hour to fulfil his sexual lust and that no serious efforts were made to apprehend the accused nor he was hotly chased by the prosecution witnesses‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances to re‑appraise the prosecution evidence to meet the ends of justice. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.
On-7th of February, 1991 at 2-00 p.m., a case under section 302, P.P.C., was registered against Bilal Ahmad (petitioner) on the statement of Habib Ullah with Police Station Zahir Pir District Rahimyar Khan for the murder of Mst. Rabia Bibi. The complainant is a resident of Basti Zimindara. His daughter, Mst. Rabia Bibi (deceased) was married with Abdul Hadi 15/16 years ago. She gave birth to a daughter, Parveen aged about 6/7 years. Abdul Hadi had been living in Saudi Arabia. Mst. Rabia Bibi was living with her daughter in the said locality. Abdul Hadi is the step brother of the petitioner. He lived in the same Ihata where Mst. Rabia was living. At about 1-00 p.m. on the day of incident, Habib Ullah, his son Jamil Akhtar and Saif Ullah alongwith their women-folk were working in their nearby fields. Bilal Ahmad called Mst. Rabia Bibi in his room and caught her in order to commit rape with her. The woman did not oblige and as such. the petitioner fired and killed her in cold blood. Habib Ullah, Jamil Akhtar and Saif Ullah saw the occurrence. The accused ran away with his weapon. A learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanpur vide his judgment, dated 17th of April, 1993 convicted and sentenced him to death under section 302, P.P.C. Petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence by filing appeal. On 6-6-1995, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence of the petitioner. The petitioner was also ordered to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer six months S.I. This petition seeking leave to appeal, has been instituted. Learned counsel submits that there was no trustworthy evidence on record to justify the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Habib Ullah P.W.1 is the father while Saif Ullah P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. Prosecution evidence is interested and partial. Their testimony, therefore, needed corroboration which was missing in this case. No crime empty could be recovered as a substantial piece of circumstantial evidence, According to the learned counsel, it would, in deed, be hard to believe that on such an odd hour, the petitioner would venture to catch the lady to fulfil his sexual lust. No serious efforts were made to apprehend the petitioner nor he was hotly chased by the P.Ws. This is a case of first impression. In such a situation, leave is granted in order to re-appraise the prosecution evidence to meet the ends of justice. N.H.Q./B-284/S- Leave granted.