2019 PLP 1315 (SCMR)
ZULFIQAR ALI — Appellant Versus IMTIAZ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1315 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Ahmad Malik, and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR ALI — Appellant Versus IMTIAZ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Appeal against acquittal, (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1315 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Appeal against acquittal, (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1315 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik, and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1315 (SCMR) (ZULFIQAR ALI — Appellant Versus IMTIAZ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbool Hussain Sh., Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz A. Shaukat, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Khalid Masood Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20.06.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.2012 of 2011)
Ss. 364, 302 & 34
Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, qatl-i-amd, common intention
Unwitnessed occurrence
According to the witnesses, the deceased was fatally shot within their view, whereupon they shifted him to the hospital in an injured condition
According to the autopsy report, deceased was brought to the hospital in dead condition by a police constable and there was nothing on the record to even obliquely suggest witnesses' presence in the hospital or the deceased being in an injured condition
Prosecution claimed that two strangers, not related to the accused or the witnesses, also saw the deceased lying critically injured at a canal bank and they also helped escort the deceased to the hospital
One of the said strangers was cited as a witness, but was subsequently given up by the complainant
Such aspects of the present case led the High Court to view the occurrence as being un-witnessed so as to extend benefit of the doubt consequent thereupon
View taken by the High Court was a possible view, structured on evidence available on the record and as such not open to any legitimate exception
Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.
Scope
Acquittal once granted could not be recalled merely on the possibility of a contra view
Unless, the impugned view was found on the fringes of impossibility, resulting into miscarriage of justice, freedom could not be recalled. Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Impugned herein is judgment dated 20-6-2013 of a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court Lahore whereby he acquitted Imtiaz son of Mehr Ali and Jehangir son of Pehlwan, respondents from the charge; indicted by a learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Tandlianwala, they were returned a guilty verdict; convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, each was sentenced to imprisonment for life along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Falak Sher deceased; they were additionally convicted under section 364 read with section 34 of the Code ibid and sentenced to 5-years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- each; sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Iftikhar co-accused has been acquitted from the charge whereas Fayyaz is still away from the law. On the fateful day i.e. 25-7-2009, at about 7:30 p.m. the respondents alongside the co-accused, confronted the deceased and fatally shot him after his abduction. Zulfiqar Ali (PW-6), Muhammad Yar (PW-7) and Nasir Ali (PW-8) furnished ocular account. According to the witnesses, the deceased was fatally shot within their view, whereupon they shifted him to the hospital in injured condition. Motive for the crime is a dispute raging over family honour.
2. According to the autopsy report, deceased was brought dead through a police constable and there is nothing on the record to even obliquely suggest witnesses' presence in the hospital; there is no medico legal report to postulate hypothesis of arrival in the hospital in injured condition. The witnesses claimed to have come across the deceased and the assailants per chance while they were on way to Chak No.504/GB. There is a reference to M/s. Zahoor Ahmed and Ali Sher, strangers to the accused as well as the witnesses, who had first seen the deceased lying critically injured at the canal bank and it is on the record that they escorted the deceased to the hospital. Ali Sher was cited as a witness, however, given up by the complainant. These aspects of the case conjointly lead the learned Judge-in-Chamber to view the occurrence as being un-witnessed so as to extend benefit of the doubt consequent thereupon. View taken by the learned Judge is a possible view, structured in evidence available on the record and as such not open to any legitimate exception. It is by now well settled that acquittal once granted cannot be recalled merely on the possibility of a contra view. Unless, the impugned view is found on the fringes of impossibility, resulting into miscarriage of justice, freedom cannot be recalled. Criminal Appeal fails. Appeal dismissed. MWA/Z-1/SC Appeal dismissed.