SCMR 1994

1994 PLP 943 (SCMR)

THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQSOOD AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 300‑L of 1993, decided on 13th December, 1993.
Honorable Judges
Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1994 PLP 943 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and
Parties THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQSOOD AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑--‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 943 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑--‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 943 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 943 (SCMR) (THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQSOOD AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑--‑

Representation

  • Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Advocate Supreme' Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 13th.December,1993.
  • Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, AA.‑G. (Punjab) and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for the State.
  • 5. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and find that the learned trial Judge in para 21 of the judgment mentioned that both eye‑witnesses claimed that the fire from Nazra accused with his gun and fire from Maqsood Ahmad respondent with his rifle hit at the abdomen of the deceased, but the medical evidence showed one injury on the abdomen instead of two injuries. He extended benefit of doubt in favour of Maqsood Ahmad as no bullet empty was recovered from the place of occurrence and the weapon alleged to have been used by him was his licensed rifle. Similarly the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court observed that the dimensions of the injury suffered by the deceased clearly show that the said injury could not have resulted from two shots hitting the same part of the body.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25‑5‑1993, in CrA. 660 of 1991. ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Benefit of doubt extended in favour of accused and verdict of his acquittal concurrently pronounced by the Courts below could not be construed to be illegal or perverse so as to call for interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, AA.‑G. (Punjab) and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑The State, through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 25‑5‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Criminal Appeal No.660 of 1991 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Maqsood Ahmad son of Nazra, Nazra son of Chohar and Rajab Ali son of Manak were tried for the murder of Dara son of Wahab by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. Rajab Ali died during the trial and proceedings against him abated. The learned trial Judge on 16‑12‑1990, convicted Nazra accused under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and a fine. Maqsood Ahmad respondent was, however, acquitted.

3. The State filed Criminal Appeal against the order of his acquittal which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 25‑5‑1993. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the State contended that ocular evidence, consisting upon the deposition of Manzoor Ahmad the complainant and Baqir P.W. fully charged Maqsood Ahmad respondent having fired with his rifle at Dara which hit him on his abdomen. It was further contended that the finding of the courts below, that one injury on the abdomen of the deceased could not have been caused by two fire shots, One attributed to Nazra and the other to Maqsood Ahmad respondent, so as to extend benefit of doubt in his favour and acquit him was wrong.

5. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and find that the learned trial Judge in para 21 of the judgment mentioned that both eye‑witnesses claimed that the fire from Nazra accused with his gun and fire from Maqsood Ahmad respondent with his rifle hit at the abdomen of the deceased, but the medical evidence showed one injury on the abdomen instead of two injuries. He extended benefit of doubt in favour of Maqsood Ahmad as no bullet empty was recovered from the place of occurrence and the weapon alleged to have been used by him was his licensed rifle. Similarly the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court observed that the dimensions of the injury suffered by the deceased clearly show that the said injury could not have resulted from two shots hitting the same part of the body.

6. In our view the benefit of doubt extended in favour of Maqsood Ahmad respondent and verdict of his acquittal concurrently pronounced by the Courts below cannot be construed to be illegal or perverse so as to call for interference. In the result, we find no merit in this petition, it is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q/S‑807/S Leave refused.