1996 PLP 1686 (SCMR)
MOHMMAD ARSHAD and others ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1686 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, Zia Mahmood Mirza |
| Parties | MOHMMAD ARSHAD and others ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1686 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1686 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, Zia Mahmood Mirza.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1686 (SCMR) (MOHMMAD ARSHAD and others ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 130‑L of 1993).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Criminal Petition No 167/L of 1993)
- S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Criminal
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf‑Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record and Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in Criminal Petition No. 167/L of 1993).
- Date of hearing; 19th June, 1994.
- Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 130-L of 1993).
- S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Criminal
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf-Khan, Advocate-on-Record and Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in Criminal Petition No. 167/L of 1993).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 30‑1‑1993 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in Cr. Appeal No. 46/1991/BWP). ‑S, 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 185(3)High Court had accepted the ocular evidence against accused on a detailed scrutiny of the record for valid reasons and there was no ground for interference with the conviction of accused recorded by Trial Court and maintained by High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Petition No. 167‑L of 1993)
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.
Muhammad Arshad convict (hereinafter called the petitioner) and Muhammad Ramzan complainant seek leave to appeal through Cr. P.S.L.A. Nos.130/1/1993 and 167/1/1993, respectively from the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 30-1-1993, whereby conviction of Muhammad Arshad under section 302 of the P.P.C. was maintained but death sentence awarded by the trial Court thereunder was altered to imprisonment for life and with this modification in the sentence his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was tried alongwith two others on the allegation that or: 14-5-1990 at 9-30 p.m. he gave blows with an iron Sua to Muhammad Sabir deceased ultimately resulting in his death. '`
3. Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Ikram P.Ws., supported the prosecution version at the trial. The prosecution also relied on the -evidence relating to motive and recovery of iron Sua from the petitioner.
4. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegation against him. 5 After examining the evidence on record the learned trial Judge rejected the evidence- relating to recovery of Sua. He also excluded statement Exh. PH, allegedly made by the deceased, from consideration and relying on the ocular and medical evidence convicted the petitioner and co-accused Muhammad Afzal. On appeal the learned Judges of the High Court also held the eye witnesses to be reliable and relying on their evidence maintained the conviction of the petition but acquitted his co-convict Muhammad Afzal by way of abundant caution.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Muhammad Ramzan P.W., was related to the deceased while Muhammad Ikram P.W., was a friend of Muhammad Ramzan P.W., and both of them resided at distant places therefore their presence at the spot was not established nor their uncorroborated evidence was sufficient to warrant the conviction. This contention was also raised before the High Court but the learned Judges repelled it for good and cogent reasons contained in para. 19 of the impugned judgment. After discussing the evidence in great detail they held that there was no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the eye-witnesses.
7. After examining the evidence on record we find that the learned Judges in the High Court have, on a detailed scrutiny of the record, accepted the ocular evidence against the petitioner for valid reasons and there is no ground for interference with the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the trial Court and maintained by the High Court. As for Cr. P.L.A. No.167/L/1993 filed by Muhammad Ramzan complainant, the same is barred by limitation and no reasonable ground for condoning the delay has been made out. Consequently both the petitions are dismissed.. N.H.Q./M-2204/S Leave refused.