1988 PLP 15 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD EHSAN — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 15 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD EHSAN — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 15 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 15 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 15 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD EHSAN — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaki-ud-Din Pal, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th July, 1987.
- Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Abid Nawaz, Advocate- on-Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14-12-1981 of the Lahore High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 1979/ Murder Reference No. 231 of 1979)
Ss. 302 & 304, Part I--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Appreciation of evidence--Chance witnesses unable to satisfactorily explain their presence at spot--Ocular testimony being in conflict with the medical evidence was rejected in entirety--Defence version accepted in toto and accused acquitted--Order of acquittal maintained--Acquittal challenged--Prosecution relying on ocular testimony of chance witnesses corroborated by evidence of recovery- One accused denying participation in occurrence at trial while other pleading grave and sudden provocation--Ocular testimony being in conflict with medical evidence and coming from chance witnesses who were unable to provide satisfactory explanation for their presence at spot, High Court rejected prosecution evidence and accepted defence version of accused in toto, convicting him under S. 304, Part I, P.P.C.--Reasons given by High Court for rejecting ocular testimony not being insubstantial or perverse and there being no reason to disbelieve any part of statement of accused, High Court, held, was right in accepting it without reservation--Supreme Court finding no basis for interfering with impugned judgment, refused leave to appeal. Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Abid Nawaz, Advocate- on-Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--For causing the death of one Muhammad Sarwar, the respondents, Zulfiqar Ali and his brother Iftikhar Ali, were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala of the offence under section 302, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. For the said offence, Zulfiqar Ali was sentenced to death while Iftikhar Ali was directed to suffer imprisonment for life. They were also asked to pay fines. On appeal and reference, the High Court acquitted Zulfiqar Ali, altered the conviction of Iftikhar Ali to the offence under section 304, Part I, but maintained his sentence of imprisonment for life. The amount of fine was increased to Rs.10,
000. An uncle of the deceased who had lodged the F . I . R . has filed this petition to seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court to challenge the acquittal of the respondents of the charge of murder.
2. The deceased and the respondents were neighbours and lived opposite to each other in the same street. According to the prosecution, on 25-9-1978, at Peshiwela, the respondents attacked the deceased in front of their house consequent upon a quarrel between their children. It was alleged that while Iftikhar Ali held the deceased in his clasp Zulfiqar Ali stabbed him with a Churri. The deceased died in the hospital on the next day.
3. Both respondents pleaded not guilty at the trial. Zulfiqar Ali denied his participation in the occurrence whereas Iftikhar Ali admitted that he had stabbed the deceased. His case was that just before the occurrence he had seen the deceased slapping his mother consequent upon a quarrel among children. He went inside the house, brought a Churri and struck a blow in the abdomen of the deceased.
4. In support of its allegations, the prosecution relied upon the ocular testimony provided by Muhammad Ehsan who is the petitioner before us and one Habibullah. It sought corroboration for the ocular testimony from the alleged recovery of a blood-stained Churri from the possession of Zulfiqar Ali. The trial Court believed the eye-witnesses as well as the recovery evidence.
5. The High Court noted that the ocular testimony came from chance witnesses who were unable to provide satisfactory explanations for their presence at the spot. Apart from that, their version was in conflict with the medical evidence. Accordingly, it rejected their evidence entirely. Consequently, it acquitted Zulfiqar Ali of the charge under section
302. It accepted the version of Iftikhar Ali in toto and held that it disclosed the commission of an offence under section 304, Part I, only. It then convicted him of that offence.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that the reasons given by the learned Judges in the High Court for rejecting the ocular testimony were insubstantial or perverse. After rejecting the ocular testimony the learned Judges were left entirely with the statement of Iftikhar Ali. There was no reason to disbelieve any part of his statement. They were therefore right in accepting it without reservation. We can find no basis for interfering with their judgment. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M . I . / M-212 / S Petition dismissed.