2021 PLP 1817 (SCMR)
JAVED AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1817 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, ACJ, Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed and |
| Parties | JAVED AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1817 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1817 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, ACJ, Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1817 (SCMR) (JAVED AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kamran Murtaza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (video link Quetta) for Petitioners.
- Abdul Baqir Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 21.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Balochistan in Cr. A. No. 168 of 2019)
Ss. 337-E(3)(vi), 427 & 447
Ghayr- jaifah-munaqqilah, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, criminal trespass
On the common ground of bad blood in the close family, the complainant was beaten by the accused persons inside his shop, a position that went un-rebutted in the evidence furnished by the Investigating Officer
Although accused persons were acquitted under Ss. 447 & 427, P.P.C. nonetheless, the site plan showed broken pieces of glass, unmistakably suggesting a brawl inside the shop
Erroneous date of examination given by the police surgeon was not in line with the entry in the medico legal certificate that unambiguously confirmed the date of incident as claimed by the prosecution
Witnesses were in a comfortable unison with each other
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and convictions and sentences of accused persons were maintained.
S. 337-E(3)(vi)
Ghayr- jaifah-munaqqilah
Convicted pensioner
Loss of pensionary benefits to the family of deceased pensioner
Not a ground to overturn conviction
Possible loss of pensionary benefits to the family of the deceased convict indivisibly linked with the co-convicts, being a conscionable consequence of the crime, hardly furnished a ground to separately overturn his conviction, which was based upon a judicial consensus
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and conviction and sentence of deceased convict was maintained. Abdul Baqir Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
In the backdrop of a dispute over property, Noor-ud-Din (PW-2) was thrashed, inside his shop, located within the precincts of Police Station City Quetta, at 4:25 p.m. on 23.5.2019 by Javed Ahmed, since dead, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Saleem and Khalil, no other than his cousins in first degree. A police surgeon noted multiple injuries that included a fracture of left forearm. Spot inspection by Muhammad Touseef SI (PW-7) confirmed damage caused by the intruders inside the outlet. Upon conclusion of trial, a learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 05.12.2019 returned a guilty verdict; the assailants were burdened with monetary compensation for causing injuries to the complainant, additionally sentenced for criminal trespass and concomitant damage to the property; the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioners from the latter charge, however, maintained the remainder of convictions, upheld by the High Court of Balochistan vide impugned judgment dated 21.10.2020, vires whereof, are being assailed, after deposit of Daman under protest on the grounds that prosecution had cast a wider net to implicate every able bodied opponent, engaged with the complainant in a civil dispute; that two injuries with a complaint of pain hardly justified en bloc conviction of all the petitioners, particularly after prosecution's failure on the charge of damage to the property in the court of session; learned counsel has also referred to a discrepancy in the deposition of police surgeon regarding date of examination to argue that flawed evidence clamoured for clean acquittal as the pensionary benefits of Javed Ahmed deceased are at stake.
2. We have heard the learned counsel on video link and perused available record with his assistance to note that on the common ground of bad blood in the close family, the complainant was taken on by the petitioners inside his shop, a position that went un-rebutted in the evidence furnished by the Investigating Officer. Though acquitted under sections 447, 427, nonetheless, the site plan showed broken pieces of glass, unmistakably suggesting a brawl inside the outlet. An erroneous date given by the police surgeon is not in line with the entry in the medico legal certificate that unambiguously confirms the date of incident as 23.05.2019. The witnesses are in a comfortable unison and have rightly been believed by the Courts below. Possible loss of pensionary benefits to the family of the deceased petitioner indivisibly linked with the co-convicts, being a conscionable consequence of the crime, hardly furnishes a ground to separately overturn his conviction, based upon a judicial consensus. Petition fails. Leave declined. MWA/J-7/SC Petition dismissed.