SCMR 2003

2003 PLP 1001 (SCMR)

Mst. ALLAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALA — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 605-L of 2001, decided on 23rd April, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2003 PLP 1001 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Parties Mst. ALLAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALA — Respondent
Primary Law (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1001 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1001 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1001 (SCMR) (Mst. ALLAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2002.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-11-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No. 165-J of 2000).

Art. 185(3)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)

Petition for leave to appeal

Delay of 258 days, condonation of

Petition was though barred by 258 days yet in the interest of justice Supreme Court examined .the same on merits as well.

S. 302(b)

Constitution If Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)

Re appraisal of evidence-- -Ocular account in conflict with medical evidence

No recovery of crime empty from the place of occurrence-- Accused was stated to be armed with a .32 pistol and the same was got recovered at his instance after his apprehension

Medical report showed that the deceased had one sharp-edged injury on his person while another injury was inflicted with blunt weapon

Trial Court sentenced the accused for life imprisonment whereas High Court accepted the appeal and acquitted the accused

Validity

Ocular account did not inspire confidence as the same was in conflict with the medical evidence- -Recovery of pistol was of no consequence as no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence

No material evidence connecting the accused with the commission of offence was pointed out and there was no legal infirmity in the judgment passed by High Court warranting interference by Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Judgment & Decree

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 2-11-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, accepted Criminal Appeal No.165 J/2000 and acquitted Muhammad Iqbal alias Balla by extending him benefit of doubt. The facts briefly narrated are that F.I.R. No.629 of 1996 was got recorded on 22-9-1996 at 8-25 a.m. at Police Station Tandalianwala, District Faisalabad, at the instance of Kameer, father-in-law of respondent No. 1 Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala. It was alleged by him that on a family dispute said Iqbal raised a Lalkara that Mst. Ameeran Bibi, his wife, would be taught a lesson for abusing his mother. Soon thereafter he took out a pistol from his Dabb and fired at Mst. Ameeran Bibi which hit the back of her left ear. He escaped from the place of occurrence and the lady succumbed of the injuries. After usual investigation the challan was-submitted in the Court. The prosecution produced nine witnesses to establish its case. When respondent Muhammad Iqbal was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. he denied his participation in the offence and professed innocence. The learned trial Judge, after evaluating the evidence brought on record, convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. for causing Qatl-i-Amd of Mst. Ameeran Bibi and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The respondent filed Jail Appeal No. 165-J of 2000 assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Hence this petition has been filed by the wife of the complainant against acquittal of the respondent. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. Although this petition is barred by 258 days but in the interest of justice we have examined the same on merits as well. We A have noticed that the complainant Kameer died before the start of the trial .in this case and the prosecution examined Mst. Allan Bibi (P.W.5), widow of Kameer, and Mst. Naziran Bibi (P.W.6), daughter, to establish the ocular account. We have also noticed that the ocular account in this case is totally in conflict with the medical evidence. In the F.I.R, respondent Iqbal was stated to be armed with a .32 bore pistol which was got recovered at his instance on 24-9-1996 after his apprehension. However, according to the medical report, the deceased had one sharp edged injury on his person while another injury was inflicted with blurt weapon. The ocular account upon its deep appraisal does not inspire confidence and, as already stated, is in conflict with the medical evidence. Even the recovery of alleged pistol was of no consequence as no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence. The learned Single Judge has recorded cogent reasons for the acquittal of respondent. Learned counsel has failed to point out any material evidence connecting the respondent with the commission of offence. Furthermore, he has not been able to mention any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, in view of foregoing discussion, we see no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. M.H./A-270/S Petition dismissed.