2016 PLP 2081 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 2081 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Iqbal Hameedur Rahman and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Appeal against acquittal |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 2081 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Appeal against acquittal as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 2081 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Iqbal Hameedur Rahman and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 2081 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Muhammad Joya, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 22-4-2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Appeal No.345 of 2004 and Murder Reference No.723 of 2004)
Eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were chance witnesses who had failed to establish the stated reason for their presence at the place of occurrence
Post-mortem examination of the deadbody of the deceased had been conducted with a noticeable delay
Medical evidence had contradicted the ocular account
Motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established
Report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory was in the negative
High Court had rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt
Petition for leave to appeal challenging acquittal of accused was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record of the case with his assistance we have noticed that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were chance witnesses who had failed to establish the stated reason for their presence at the place of occurrence. The post-mortem examination of the deadbody of the deceased had been conducted with a noticeable delay. The medical evidence had contradicted the ocular account. The motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established. The report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory was in the negative. In view of the above mentioned factors the High Court had concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondent No.2 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/M-65/SC Petition dismissed.