2012 PLP 89 (SCMR)
SAEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 89 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mian Saqib Nisar and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | SAEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 89 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 89 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mian Saqib Nisar and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 89 (SCMR) (SAEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Khizar Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 28th June, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 3-12-2008 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2003 and M.R. No.182 of 2003).
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Delay in F.I.R.
Conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C. and sentences of death awarded by Trial Court was set aside by High Court and accused was acquitted
Delay of nine hours in lodging F.I.R. and motive set was trivial in nature
Both the eye-witnesses were closely related to deceased as son and nephew
Occurrence had taken place in a broad daylight at public place but not a single witness appeared to support prosecution case
Injuries suffered by deceased were merely abrasions and finding that it reflected conflict between ocular account and medical account was not conjectural
Finding of acquittal in favour of accused was neither against evidence led nor arbitrary
Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed by High Court
Leave to appeal was refused. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent Muhammad Nawaz was tried in the case registered vide F.I.R. No.196 of 2001 dated 17-11-2001 under section 302, P.P.C. at Police Station Tarkhani, Samundri on the allegation that on the fateful day and time, he intentionally ran over his tractor on Ghulam Qadir and caused his death (complainant's father). The motive alleged was that the appellant Saeed Ahmed complainant/P.W.8 owed a sum of Rs.100 to the appellant and on refusal of the complainant, the respondent resorted to abuses which prompted the deceased to rebuke the appellant which provoked him and he caused the intentional murder. The learned trial Court convicted the respondent under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to death. The learned High Court however allowed the appeal as it found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant seeks leave on the ground that the learned High Court proceeded to acquit the respondent on conjectures; that the evidence led by the prosecution was not properly appreciated by the learned High Court; that both the eye-witnesses though related, were natural witnesses of the occurrence; that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. stood explained by the fact that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased had to be hospitalized; that a bare reading of the postmortem examination would indicate that the injuries suffered by the deceased were the direct result of the tractor having been run over the deceased and that the acquittal of the respondent has led to a grave miscarriage of justice.
3. Having heard petitioner's learned counsel at some length, we note that admittedly there is a delay of nine hours in lodging the F.I.R.; that the motive set was trivial in nature; that both the eyewitnesses namely P.W.8 Saeed Ahmed (complainant) and P.W.9 Khalid Mehmood are closely related to the deceased being son and nephew respectively; that though the occurrence took place in a broad daylight at a public place yet not a single witness appeared to support the prosecution case; that the injuries suffered by the deceased were merely abrasions and the finding that it reflected a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence was not conjectural. That being so, the finding of acquittal in respondent's favour is neither against the evidence led nor arbitrary. In these circumstances no case for interference is made out. The petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. M.H./S-41/SC Petition dismissed.