SCMR 1987

1987 PLP 434 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 373 of 1981, decided on 18th October, 1986.(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑7‑1981 in Criminal Appeal No. 1081 of 1979).
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ,
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1987 PLP 434 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ,
Parties MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 434 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 434 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ,.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 434 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

Representation

  • Nasim Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
  • Date of hearing: 18th October, 1986 .

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/34‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Reappraisal of evidence‑‑Petition against conviction‑‑Day time occurrence‑‑Prosecution relying upon ocular evidence and motive of crime‑‑Findings of fact reached by Courts below not suffering from any legal infirmity‑‑No case made out for reappraisal of evidence by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 20th July, 1981, of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' appeal against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment as also fine in a murder case, was dismissed. The petitioners and Ghulam Elahi their deceased co‑accused it was the prosecution case, murdered Munawar Hussain their co‑villager for the motive that the latter had illicit connection with the daughter of said Ghulam Elahi accused. They waylaid the deceased, Muhammad Ashraf and Tariq petitioners gave blows to the deceased with sharp‑edged weapons while their co‑accused Ghulam Elahi had exhorted them to commit the crime. The occurrence was witnessed by Fazal Elahi P.W. a maternal‑uncle of the deceased and Muhammad Elahi P.W. who is not related to the parties and appears to be an independent witness. In addition to the motive and ocular evidence, the recovery of a knife from Muhammad Ashraf was sought to be proved against him at the trial but it has not been relied upon. The occurrence is of day time and the F.I.R was very prompt. The names of the accused are mentioned in the F.I.R. One of the eye‑witnesses is an independent person. There was no such enmity as to suggest false implication of either of the petitioners by Muhammad Elahi P.W. Learned counsel has, however, contended that none of the two eye‑witnesses are independent nor their testimony inspires confidence. He pointed out certain variations and improbabilities in the testimony of Muhammad Elahi P.W. and also brought to our notice that although the witness was not in reality hostile, an attempt was made to declare him as such on insufficient grounds. We do not accept the contention of the learned counsel that both the witnesses in this case were interested. The alleged connection of Muhammad Elahi P.W. with the complainant side is too old and too remote to impel him to falsely implicate the petitioners in a case of murder. By and large he stood the test of crossexamination. The so‑called variations and improbabilities are on minor points and do not affect the substantive part of his testimony. Learned counsel has not been able to make out a case for re‑appraisal of evidence by this Court. The findings of fact reached) by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity. This petition accordingly has no force and is dismissed. M.I./4424/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.