2011 PLP 168 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 PLP 168 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Khilji Arif Hussain and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 168 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 168 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Khilji Arif Hussain and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 168 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Haq Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of Advocate-General Balochistan for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 14-7-2009 passed by High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 25 of 2007 and Murder Reference No. 9 of 2007).
Ss. 302(b) & 201
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Qatl-e -amd and causing disappearance of evidence of offence
Submissions were, that occurrence was unseen, circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove the guilt of accused
Courts below had erred in law in resorting to convictions under Ss. 302 and 201, P.P.C. at a time and no independent evidence was led to prove fear and public alarm to attract the provisions of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Leave to appeal was granted to accused to consider, inter alia, the said points. Fazal Dad v. Ghulam Muhammad Malik PLD 2007 SC 571 ref. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of Advocate-General Balochistan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Submits that it was an un-witnessed occurrence; that the circumstantial evidence led to prove the case was not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt; that the learned Courts have fallen in error in not appreciating that the conviction under two sections i.e. under sections 302 and 201, P.P.C. could not be resorted to at a time; that no independent evidence was led to prove fear and public alarm to bring the case within the mischief of section 6 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. Reliance was placed on Fazal Dad v. Ghulam Muhammad Malik (PLD 2007 SC 571).
2. Having heard petitioners' learned counsel at some length, leave is granted to consider the afore referred points and any other point which may arise. N.H.Q./M-64/SC Leave granted.