1996SCMR1663 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ ‑‑‑ Petitioner, Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996SCMR1663 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ ‑‑‑ Petitioner, Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR1663 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR1663 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR1663 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ ‑‑‑ Petitioner, Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of Hearing: 3rd May, 1994. '
- Muhammad Munir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Qamar-ud-Din Khan Meo, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 31‑1‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, passed in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 1991 and M.R. No.29 of 1991/BWP). ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Observations made by High Court to reduce the sentence of accused were not spelled out from the evidence on record and the same could not bring his case under S. 304, P.P.C.‑‑‑F.I.R. having been promptly lodged could not be said either to be a non‑genuine djcurnent o.‑ to have been recorded after consultation‑‑‑Courts below had appraised th; evidence properly‑‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. ip. 1664) A L 13 Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of Hearing: 3rd May, 1994. ' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--:Leave to appeal has been sought against the. judgment of the High Court dated 31-1-1993.
2. The facts be noted are that the petitioner and co-accused Muhammad Rafiq were convicted and sentenced under section 302, P.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. The appeal brought by the convicts had been disposed of vide impugned judgment, whereby Muhammad Rafiq was acquitted and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed, but his sentence of death converted into life imprisonment.
3. According to the prosecution, on 20-4-1989 at 8-30 a.m. Muhammad Sadiq was sitting in front of the shop holding a gun accompanied by his wife Mst. Parveen and a small child. Taj Muhammad complainant was told that Ghulam Haider could be coming soon. In the meantime Allah Diwaya deceased came there from his shop. Muhammad Sadiq fired a straight shot at Allah Diwaya which struck him on the chest. He fell, down. Muhammad Sadiq fired 3 more shots at Allah Diwaya which struck him on the back of his head and on the back. Allah Diwaya died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Taj Muhammad, Wahid Bakhsh and Khair Muhammad. According to the First Information Report Shah Muhammad, brother of the complainant, was married second time to Mst. Naziran before the occurrence. As Mst. Naziran was of a bad character, quarrels used to arise right from the day of marriage. It is alleged that Allah Diwaya deceased, Muhammad Nawaz Budha and Ashiq went to the house of Shah Muhammad and snubbed Mst. .Naziran and also beaten her and told her to stop behaving in the dirty manner or to get Talaq. Ocular account was deposed to by Taj Muhammad (P.W.6), Khair Muhammad (P.W.7) and Wahid Bukhsh (P.W.8). They are consistent in their statements that the accused had caused injuries to the deceased by means of a fire-arm as a result of which the deceased died. The medical evidence fully corroborated the direct. evidence. The eye-witnesses are related to the accused. The Courts below have accepted the statements of these witnesses and convicted the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the following observations of the High Court:-- "it seems that something untoward, for which the prosecution did not take the Court into confidence, took place between the deceased and Sadiq and as Sadiq was holding a gun, he used the same. It is possible that while talking about Mst. Naziran the deceased might have said . something indecent about her which, however, strongly might have been correct and true, would have hurt the feelings of Muhammad Sadiq, being brother of Mst. Naziran." The High Court has made these observations in order to reduce the sentence of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the above observations would bring the case of the petitioner under section 304, P.P.C. This argument is devoid of force. The observations made by the High Court are not spelled out from the evidence on record. The witnesses did not say anything from which it can be deduced that the High Court has drawn right conclusion in making such observations.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the evidence of the witnesses and submitted that implicit reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of these witnesses, being closely related to the deceased. As stated above, they are also related to the accused. He next contended that the circumstances of the case do not establish that the petitioner was arrested on the spot with a gun that the police station was at a distance of 3 furlongs and it could not be believed that the accused remained at the site with weapon of offence when the police arrived at the spot. The time of occurrence is 8-30 a.m and the report was lodged at ~8 9-30 a. m. As there was no delay, therefore, it cannot be said that the F.1.R is not a genuine document or that it was recorded after consultation. The two I Courts have properly appraised the evidence. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused. N.H.Q./M-2210/S Leave refused