1982 PLP 1110 (SCMR)
ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH-Petitioner Versus ASHIQ ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1110 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --- S. 337-Approver-Totally exculpatory statement made by appro ver-Held, not reliable--Approver. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH-Petitioner Versus ASHIQ ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1110 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 1110 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --- S. 337-Approver-Totally exculpatory statement made by appro ver-Held, not reliable--Approver. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1110 (SCMR) (ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH-Petitioner Versus ASHIQ ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Abdul Waheed Advocate, Supreme Court, assisted by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. M. Saeed Baig, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Advocate- on-Record for Respondent No. 2.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1
- Date of hearing : 20th June, 1982.
- Kh. Abdul Waheed Advocate, Supreme Court, assisted by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. M. Saeed Baig, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Advocate- on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 19-5-1981 of the Lahore High Court Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1979 and Murder Reference No. 3 of 1979). .
S. 337-Approver-Totally exculpatory statement made by appro ver-Held, not reliable--[Approver].
Ss. 21 & 24-Extra-judicial confession retracted, sought to be established through a witness whose statement not inspiring confidence and element of undue influence also not safely excluded-Not acted [Confession].
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 19‑5‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, whereby Ashiq Ali Shah respondent was acquitted, on appeal from trial Court judgment wherein he was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Amanat Shah.
2. The prosecution case was that the respondent had illicit connection with Mst. Kalsoom his co‑accused wife of Amanat deceased. They decided to kill Amanat with the help of Murad approver. Accordingly, the respondent and the approver took him away on a false pretext and killed him with Tooka and Chhuri, which were later on recovered at their instance. At the trial, besides the said recoveries and approver's testimony, evidence was led of `last seen together', extra‑judicial confession and motive.
3. The learned trial Judge acquitted Mst. Kalsoom for lack of evidence and relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the respon dent as noted earlier. He had pleaded total denial and innocence appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court acquitted the respondent on it finding that "there are many loop‑holes which have not been filled by strong and reliable circumstantial evidence so as to exclude the possibility that the appellant was innocent and was not real murderer."
4. We have heard the learned counsel in support of this petition. There was enmity between the family of the deceased and the respondent for some time, hence it was highly improbable that the deceased would have gone with the respondent and Murad even on a false pretext. Moreover, no independent evidence was led on this important aspect of the case.
5. The testimony of approver in this case is of no use to the prosecution. He made a totally exculpatory statement. No reliance could be placed on it either
6. The extra‑judicial confession which was retracted was sought to be established through Nasir Ahmad P. W. 3 whose statement does not inspire confidence. In any case, the element of undue influence could not be safely excluded.
7. The appreciation of above‑noted and other evidence by the High Court does not suffer from any such infirmity, which might have furnished, justification for interference by this Court, with a judgment of acquittal. We accordingly dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.