2005 SCMR 1931 (PLP)
THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh — Petitioner Versus SHAH NAWAZ alias SHAHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 SCMR 1931 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh — Petitioner Versus SHAH NAWAZ alias SHAHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 SCMR 1931 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 SCMR 1931 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 SCMR 1931 (PLP) (THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh — Petitioner Versus SHAH NAWAZ alias SHAHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Additional Advocate-General for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th June, 2004.
- THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh---Petitioner
- 3. Learned Additional Advocate-General contended as follows:--
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment, dated 17-10-2003 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2000).
S. 302/34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Contentions were that overwhelming prosecution evidence was available on record to establish accusation against the accused; that delay in lodging the F.I.R. in view of the facts and circumstances of the case was not fatal for prosecution case; that variation in the time of death of the two deceased did not create any doubt in the case; that intrinsic value of the prosecution evidence had remained intact despite lengthy cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant; that Trial Court after having appreciated evidence in accordance with law, had convicted the accused assigning cogent reasons and that the impugned judgment of High Court acquitting the accused was contrary to the law laid down by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was granted to State, inter alia, to examine as to whether the accused had rightly been acquitted by the High Court. Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 and Tehmina Mufti v. University of Sindh, Jamshoro and another 1995 SCMR 664 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 17th October, 2003, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2000, whereby appeal filed by the respondents was allowed.
2. Precisely stating facts giving rise to the instant case are that the complainant had a family dispute i.e. demand of hand of girl with the respondents. On 17th July, 1998, at about 7-00 a.m. complainant Kabil Khan was present in the shop of Muhammad Siddique situated in his village Masoor Ji Wah. P.Ws. Shabbir and Muhammad Siddique were also present complainant was sitting in nearby hotel to take tea while Nasrullah (deceased) another son of complainant was present in his own shop/Medical Store at some distance. Accused-respondents Shah Nawaz alias Shahan and Azizullah armed with guns while Dilshad armed with a pistol appeared and raised Lalkara that they would not to be spared by them with regard to that family dispute arisen between them. Shah Nawaz fired with his gun hitting deceased Zafarullah on his head who fell down and died instantaneously. After a few minutes respondents started running towards complainant's other son namely Nasrullah. Complainant followed them to save his son but within the sight of the complainant and P.Ws. Shabbir and Muhammad Siddique, respondents Azizullah and Dilshad fired with gun and pistol respectively hitting on his head and back who also succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General contended as follows:-- (1) Prosecution produced overwhelming incriminating evidence to establish accusation against respondents but the High Court ignoring the same has acquitted him unjustifiably. (2) Delay hi lodging the F.I.R. in view of the facts and circumstances of the case could not have been considered fatal for the prosecution case. (3) The variation in the time of death of deceased Nasrullah and A Zafarullah has wrongly been considered to be a factor for doubling the prosecution case. (4) The intrinsic value of the prosecution evidence remained intact despite lengthy cross-examination on the statements of the witnesses particularly P.Ws. Qabil Khan (complainant) and Muhammad Siddique. (5) The respondents were charged for the commission of double murder and the trial Court on having appreciated evidence in accordance with law convicted them assigning cogent reasons. (6) The impugned judgment deserves interference by this Court as it has proceeded contrary to the law laid down in the cases of Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 and Tehmina Mufti v. University of Sindh, Jamshoro and another 1995 SCMR
664. After hearing learned counsel leave to appeal is granted, inter ilia, to examine as to whether the respondents have rightly been acquitted by the High Court. To procure the attendance of respondents bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each returnable to the Registrar be issued. N.H.Q./5100/S Leave granted.