1994 PLP 47 (SCMR)
ZAFAR HAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 47 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | ZAFAR HAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 47 (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 47 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 47 (SCMR) (ZAFAR HAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Barrister‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahud Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21‑8‑1991 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1989 and Murder Reference No. 83 of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contentions that occurrence was an un-witnessed one having taken place during dark hours of the night, presence of eye‑witnesses was not established and the accused had been falsely implicated on mere suspicion and inordinate delay had occurred in lodging the F.I.R., required examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was, therefore, granted to the accused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J: ‑‑Zafar Hayat petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 21‑8‑1991 whereby his death sentence under section 302, P.P.C. was altered to imprisonment for life and with this modification his appeal was dismissed.. Sher Muhammad complainant has moved Criminal Petition No.9/L/92 seeking enhancement of the sentence of the convict. 2. . The petitioner was tried on the allegation that on the night between 20/21‑4‑1987. at about 12/1‑00 (mid‑night he committed the murder of Muhammad Naut, son of Sher Muhammad by firing at him in a street of Chak No.58/NB.
3. The F.I.R. version was that on the fateful night Sher Muhammad complainant, his son Muhammad Naut, his (complainant's) brother Dost Muhammad and Ghulam Yaseen P.Ws. returned from Khushab by a bus. From Bus Stand Dharayma they went to their Chak on foot. At about 12/1‑00 (mid‑night) they were passing through the street when War Hayat armed with a gun suddenly confronted them and after raising a Lalkara that he would take revenge for the insult fired at Muhammad Naut who died at the spot.
4. At the trial the prosecution examined two eye‑witnesses namely Sher Muhammad complainant and Ghulam Yaseen P.Ws. Dost Muhammad was given up as unnecessary. Prosecution also relied on the evidence relating to motive and recovery of gun from Zafar Hayat petitioner.
5. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegation against him. He stated that he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry. The deceased had enmity with many other persons and was killed by someone during the dark hours of the night.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was an unwitnessed occurrence having taken place during dark hours of night; the presence of the eye‑witnesses is not established and the petitioner was falsely implicated on mere suspicion. He submits that inordinate delay in lodging up a story. After going through the evidence we feel that the submissions made by the learned counsel require examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to War Hayat petitioner. Criminal Petition No. 9/L/1992 will be heard alongwith this matter. N.H.Q./Z‑158/S Leave granted.