2005 PLP 1366 (SCMR)
GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus FIDA HUSSAIN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1366 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Hamid Ali Mirza and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus FIDA HUSSAIN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1366 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1366 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Hamid Ali Mirza and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1366 (SCMR) (GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus FIDA HUSSAIN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arif Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th July, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14-3-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Criminal Appeal No.598 of 2001).
S. 302/34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Cause of death, failure to prove
Inconsistent versions
Occurrence was unseen according to F.I.R and Trial Court convicted the accused persons to life imprisonment
High Court accepted the appeal and the accused were acquitted of the charge
Complainant had expressed his suspicion in F.I.R about involvement of accused persons in the commission of offence but when he appeared in Trial Court he had changed his version as if he had himself witnessed the incident
Same was the opinion of the other prosecution witnesses
High Court, after scanning the evidence carefully, came to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not trustworthy
High Court had also taken into consideration that no material evidence was available to establish the cause of death of the deceased
Acquittal of accused recorded by High Court warranted no interference
Leave to appeal was refused. Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 and Sultan Ahmed v. Ghulam Raza and 2 others 1995 SCMR 664 fol.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 14-3-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that vide F.I.R. Exh.P.A. under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered on the complaint of Ghulam Sarwar P.W., wherein he has expressed suspicion that Bashir Ahmed his brother has been murdered by Fida Hussain, Faqir Bakhsh, Nazeer Ahmed respondents whose dead body was found lying in a watercourse situated near Chah Banjar Sakhani Wala. During course of investigation blood-stained earth and vomiting waste was recovered. The respondents were arrested on 12-11-1998. Upon completion of investigation they were tried as they did not plead guilty to the charge, as such prosecution led evidence to substantiate accusation against them. Learned trial Court after having gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution including P.Ws. Ghulam Sarwar, Shimla, Allah Bakhsh and Ghulam Akbar came to the conclusion that respondents are guilty for the commission of the offence as such they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000 each and further undergo S.I. for six months in default in the payment of fine. The respondents preferred appeal before the High Court which has been accepted and they were acquitted of the charges vide impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that overwhelming incriminating evidence is available on record to connect the respondents with commission of the offence. But the learned High Court without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly acquitted them of the charges without any strong legal justification.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the evidence available on record. It may be noted that in F.I.R. (Exh.P.A.) the complainant has expressed his suspicion about the involvement of the respondents in the commission of the offence but when he appeared in the Court he had changed his version altogether as if he had himself witnessed the incident. Same is the position of the other witnesses. Therefore, the learned High Court after having scanning the evidence carefully came to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not trustworthy. It is important to note that learned High Court had also taken into consideration that no medical evidence was available to establish the cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, in such view of the matter we are of the opinion that the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the High Court warrants no interference in view of the principle laid down in the judgments reported as Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 and Sultan Ahmed v. Ghulam Raza and 2 others 1995 SCMR
664. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in this petition has such same is dismissed and leave declined. M.H./G-31/S Petition accepted. ***