2018 PLP 1768 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus PERVAIZ AKRAM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 1768 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Umar Ata Bandial and Munib Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus PERVAIZ AKRAM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 1768 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 1768 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Umar Ata Bandial and Munib Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 1768 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus PERVAIZ AKRAM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 19.02.2018 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Jail Appeal No. 134 of 2015)
S. 302(b)
Qatl-i-amd
Petition for leave to appeal against acquittal
Alleged murder had remained unwitnessed and at some subsequent stage accused had been implicated as an accused person purely on the basis of suspicion
One of the prosecution witnesses had tried to state a background which could confirm the motive for the offence but said witness had neither told the complainant about the same nor informed the police in such regard at the earliest opportunity
Furthermore no independent evidence worth its name had been produced before the Trial Court regarding the alleged motive
Medical evidence had established that the cause of death of deceased was drowning and the circumstances in which he drowned never became available on record
Doctor appearing before the Trial Court had stated that some injuries found on the dead body could be the result of hitting a hard surface and the site plan of the place of occurrence showed that there were rocks and stones available at the spot and their availability at the spot was also admitted by some prosecution witnesses
High Court had rightly acquitted the accused by concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Respondent No. 1 had been convicted by the trial court for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine but on appeal he was acquitted by the High Court. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. Admittedly the alleged murder had remained unwitnessed and at some subsequent stage respondent No. 1 had been implicated as an accused person purely on the basis of suspicion. The prosecution witness appearing as PW6 had tried to state about a background which could confirm a motive but it had become available on the record that he had not told the complainant about the same or had informed the police in that regard at the earliest opportunity. Apart from that no independent evidence worth its name had been produced before the trial court regarding the alleged motive. The medical evidence had established that the cause of death of Faiz Muhammad deceased was drowning and it had never become available on the record as to in which circumstances the deceased had drowned to death. The doctor appearing before the trial court as PW9 had stated that some injuries found on the deadbody could be a result of hitting hard surface and the site-plan of the place of occurrence showed that there were rocks and stones available at the spot and availability of rocks and stones at the spot was also admitted by some prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances the High Court had concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondent No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt and we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said conclusion reached by the High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/A-14/SC Petition dismissed.