SCMR 2022

2022 PLP 1280 (SCMR)

GHAFFAR MAHESAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G Sindh and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petitions Nos. 100-K and 101-K of 2020, decided on 26th January, 2022.
Honorable Judges
Umar Ata Bandial, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2022 PLP 1280 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Umar Ata Bandial, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Parties GHAFFAR MAHESAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G Sindh and others — Respondents
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 1280 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 1280 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 1280 (SCMR) (GHAFFAR MAHESAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P.G Sindh and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Abdul Baqi Jan Kakar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Sindh in Criminal As. Nos. S-11 and 12 of 2019)

S. 302(b)

Qatl-i-amd

Reappraisal of evidence

Occurrence was a daylight affair

Three prosecution witnesses, including the deceased's father, unanimously pointed their finger upon the accused as being one of the assassins

Father of deceased was certainly not expected to substitute the real assassin of his son with a proxy

Statements of said three prosecution witnesses were in a comfortable unison on all the salient aspects of the case as well as details collateral thereto

Being from the same neighbourhood, their presence at the crime scene could not be viewed with suspicion

Medical evidence was consistent with the timeline of the occurrence as well as injuries suffered by the deceased

Preponderance of evidence undoubtedly constituted "proof beyond doubt" and, thus, could be relied upon without any objection to hold the accused guilty of the crime

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and leave was refused. Saleem Mangrio, Additional P.G. Sindh for the State. Complainant in person.

Judgment & Decree

QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.

Saddar-ud-Din, 28/29, was shot dead at 11:30 a.m. on 18.5.2018 within the precincts of Police Station Tharo Shah District Noshahro Feroz; incident was reported by his father Ali Nawaz (PW-1) at 2:00 p.m; the petitioner, Lakhmir alias Lakhoo and an unknown person were arrayed as suspects in the crime report. Petitioner's displeasure over deceased's marriage with daughter of one Arbab Mehsar is cited as motive for the crime. Even dated autopsy confirmed receipt of four shots, jointly fired by the petitioner and Lakhmir co-accused, proved collectively fatal; petitioner was arrested on 20.5.2018 and pursuant to a disclosure, led to the recovery of a .30 caliber pistol found wedded with the casings secured from the spot; Lakhmir co-accused is still away from law whereas prosecution is clueless about the third assailant till date. The learned Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze returned a guilty verdict vide judgment dated 22.1.2019 whereunder the petitioner stood convicted under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860; he was sentenced to imprisonment for life; for recovered weapon being illicit, he was additionally convicted and sentenced, both upheld by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur, vide impugned judgment dated 31.1.2020, leave to appeal wherefrom is being prayed for on the grounds that there was no occasion for the learned trial Judge to convict the petitioner on capital charge in the absence of "proof beyond doubt", an error repeated by the High Court; it is next argued that statements of the witnesses being discrepant were not worthy of reliance and that the ballistic report relied by the prosecution being inherently flawed was liable to be excluded from consideration. With a vague and non-specific motive, fraught with doubts, petitioner's conviction could not be maintained without potential risk of error, concluded the learned counsel. The learned Law Officer contrarily defended the impugned judgment.

2. Heard. Record perused.

3. Occurrence is a daylight affair; Ali Nawaz (PW-1), Sher Muhammad (PW-2) and Abdul Raheem (PW-3) unanimously pointed their finger upon the petitioner as being one of the assassins; Ali Nawaz (PW-1) being father of the deceased is certainly not expected to substitute the real assassin of his son with a proxy. We have gone through their statements to find them in a comfortable unison on all the salient aspects of the case as well as details collateral thereto. Being from the same neighbourhood, their presence at the crime scene cannot be viewed with suspicion. Medical evidence is consistent with the timeline of the occurrence as well as injuries suffered by the deceased. Preponderance of evidence undoubtedly constitute "proof beyond doubt" and, thus, can be relied upon without a demur to hold the petitioner guilty of the crime, particularly, in the face of a bald denial with reticent support of his real brother, clamouring innocence. Petitions fail. Leave declined. MWA/G-8/SC Petition dismissed.