1993 PLP 891 (SCMR)
THE STATE‑‑‑Appellant Versus JAMIL‑UZ‑ZAMAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 891 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Justice Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, Chairman, Justices Raja Afrasiab Khan and Abdul Majid Tiwana, Members |
| Parties | THE STATE‑‑‑Appellant Versus JAMIL‑UZ‑ZAMAN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 891 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 891 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Justice Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, Chairman, Justices Raja Afrasiab Khan and Abdul Majid Tiwana, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 891 (SCMR) (THE STATE‑‑‑Appellant Versus JAMIL‑UZ‑ZAMAN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.302/34‑‑‑Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act (IX of 1992), S.13(5)‑‑ Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Evidence available on record did not show that the accused had a knowledge that their co‑accused was having a pistol‑‑‑Accused in circumstances could not be held vicariously liable for the murder‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑This State Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Court for Speedy Trials‑II, Lahore, dated 7‑12‑1992 whereby the respondents Jamiluzzaman and Asafuzzaman were acquitted of the charge under section 302/34 of the P.P.C.
2. The respondents alongwith their brother Khalil‑uz‑Zaman were tried on the allegation that on 2‑4‑1992 at about 9‑00 p.m. they quarreled with Mst. Aasia Perveen wife of aforesaid Khalil‑uz‑Zaman and during the course held her by her arms while Khalil‑uz‑Zaman fired a pistol shot hitting left side of her chest as a result of which she died at the spot.
3. At the trial Faqir Ullah complainant P.W.3, father of Mst. Aasia Perveen, and Muhammad Saeed P.W.4 supported the above prosecution version.
4. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegation against them. They stated that they were falsely implicated.
5. Learned State counsel contends that the respondents were acquitted by the trial Court on the ground that they were found innocent during the investigation, therefore, their acquittal was bad in law. He further submits that the evidence of the aforesaid two eye‑witnesses clearly shows that the respondents facilitated the commission of murder by holding the deceased from her arms and thus shared the common intention with the principal accused Khalil‑uz‑Zaman.
6. On going through the evidence we find no substance in the above contention. The evidence rather indicates that the respondents had no knowledge that their co‑accused Khalil‑uz‑Zaman was having a pistol with him. In doss‑examination Faqir Ullah complainant admitted that when he and Saeed reached the spot there was no pistol in the hand of Khalil‑uz‑Zaman and he took it out from his Dub. Muhammad Saeed stated: "Pistol was not in the hand of Khalil accused. He took out pistol from his Dub in our presence The shot was fired immediately." In view of the above admissions it could not be said that the respondents had a knowledge that their co‑accused was having a pistol. In the circumstances they cannot be held vicariously liable for the murder. The appeal is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./89/SAC. Appeal dismissed.