SCMR 1999

1999 PLP 2414 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD alias BASHIR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Appeal No. 514 of 1995 out of J.P. 106 of 1991, decided on 14th October, 1998.
Honorable Judges
Raja Afrasiab Khan, Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Sh. Riaz Ahmed, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1999 PLP 2414 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Raja Afrasiab Khan, Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Sh. Riaz Ahmed, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD alias BASHIR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2414 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2414 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Sh. Riaz Ahmed, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2414 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD alias BASHIR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Nemo for Appellant.
  • Date of hearing: 14th October, 1998.
  • Karam Ilahi Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 10-6-1991 passed in Criminal Appeal 106 of 1989 and M.R. 44 of 1989).

S. 302

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)

Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine if on the motive alleged by the prosecution sentence of imprisonment for life instead of death sentence be awarded to the accused.

S. 302

Sentence

Mitigating circumstance

Parties were living in the same village amicably and peacefully and no untoward incident took place between them in the last about 22/23 years

Prosecution in circumstances was duty bound to have proved as to what had actually happened immediately before the occurrence, which it failed to do

Motive, thus, was shrouded in mystery-- Sentence of accused was converted from death to imprisonment for life in circumstances to meet the ends of justice. Karam Ilahi Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Judgment & Decree

RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN J.

On 18-12-1995, petition of the appellant, Muhammad Bashir was dismissed by this Court on merits. However, leave was granted to him to consider the quantum of sentence awarded to him with the following order:-- "For murder of Khaliqdad deceased on 28-2-1997 at 5.30 p.m. the petitioner Muhammad Bashir was convicted for offence under section 302, P.P.C. on 26-1-1989 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, and sentenced to death and fine. On 10-6-1991 a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissed his appeal and maintained conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks leave for appeal against his conviction and sentence before this Court. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner we have gone through the record of the case and impugned judgment. The incident has taken place during the broad daylight at 5.30 p.m. The report thereof was lodged at the police station at 7.00 p.m. The distance between the place of vardat and the police station is 5/6 miles hence there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. The names of the eye-witnesses Allah Bux and Dost Muhammad appear in the F.I.R. The above said both witnesses have fully implicated the petitioner for the offence. Though Allah Bux brother-in-law of the deceased but he has no grudge against the petitioner to falsely implicate him. Witness Dost Muhammad is totally independent. The evidence of the above said two witnesses was found to be confidence inspiring by the two Courts below. No infirmity was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to discard it. However, an ignorable contradiction regarding number of shots was pointed out which in our view is not sufficient to discard their evidence. In such a situation the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the motive was far fetched of about 22/23 years back which may not be sufficient to maintain death sentence of the petitioner. In such view of the fact we maintain the conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 302, P.P.C. and dismiss his petition to that extent. However, we grant leave to appeal to examine if on the motive alleged by the prosecution sentence of imprisonment for life instead of death sentence be awarded to the petitioner. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly. ".

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent at some length. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant despite service. It is evident from the above order that the earlier incident which provided motive to the appellant to commit the aforesaid offence, took place about 22/23 years ago. It is in the evidence of Allah Bakhsh P.W. 6 that since the date of murder of Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Bashir, the appellant and the deceased lived in the same village. In other words, no untoward incident took place in the last about 22/23 years between the parties. It can, therefore, safely be said that the parties to this case lived amicable and peacefully in the village. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution to have proved as to what actually happened immediately before the occurrence in hand took place. This has not been done by the prosecution. This being the position, motive is shrouded in mystery. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to award lesser sentence to the appellant on the aforesaid ground. The sentence of the appellant is converted from death to imprisonment for life to meet the ends of justice. The fine is, however, increased from Rs.10,000 to Rs.1,00,000 which, on recovery, would be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to the appellant. With these observations, the appeal is partly allowed. N.H.Q./M-230/S Sentence reduced.