SCMR 1994

1994 PLP 1143 (SCMR)

MAHMOOD AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal dos. 189‑L and 199‑L/1993, decided on 4th December, 1993.
Honorable Judges
Nasim Hassan Shah, CJ., Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1994 PLP 1143 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Nasim Hassan Shah, CJ., Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ
Parties MAHMOOD AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Cr.P.LA. No. 189/L of 1993, Cr.P.LA. No. 199/L of 1993, Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1143 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Cr.P.LA. No. 189/L of 1993, Cr.P.LA. No. 199/L of 1993, Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1143 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hassan Shah, CJ., Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1143 (SCMR) (MAHMOOD AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Cr.P.LA. No. 189/L of 1993 Cr.P.LA. No. 199/L of 1993 Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Mubashir Latif Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Walayat Umer, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
  • Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
  • Date of hearing: 4th December, 1993.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 17‑2‑1993, in CrA. 5 of 1981). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 302/34 & 304, Part I/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to ensure that the principles applicable to the safe administration of criminal justice had been duly observed in the case. Nemo for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑Mahmood Ahmed, petitioner in Criminal Petition No.189‑L of 1993, and Muhammad Aslam and another, petitioners in Criminal Petition No.199‑L of 1993, seek leave to appeal against judgment dated 17‑2‑1993, of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench) whereby he disposed of Criminal Appeal No.5/1991 and Criminal Revision No.29 of 1991 together.

2. The prosecution case against the accused was that on 4‑9‑1979, at about 5.30 p.m. Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Yaqoob petitioners armed with saryas and Arshad with hatchet were sitting in the baithak of Muhammad Aslam alongwith the acquitted co‑accused. They attacked Mahmood complainant P.W.8, when he passed in front of the house of Muhammad Aslam. The petitioners gave Sarya blows to him. On raising alarm Noor Ahmad, Mubarik, Muhammad Khan, Mst. Aisha and Mst. Sakina reached the spot and intervened. Mst. Aisha and Mst. Sakina received injuries from Muhammad Aslam. Noor Ahmad, Mubarik and Muhammad Khan P.Ws. were also injured in the occurrence. Afterwards Mst. Aisha, succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The motive of the occurrence given by the prosecution was that the complainant Mahmood Ahmad, got a case registered against Muhammad Akram brother of Muhammad Aslam, petitioner, in the Anti‑Corruption Department. The accused wanted the complainant to resile from his statement, on his refusal he felt annoyed and attacked him alongwith his co- accused.

3. Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Yaqoob petitioners alongwith Muhammad Arshad, Ahmad Din, Ibrahim, Ikramul Haq and Muhammad Ramzan were tried under section, 148/302/307/149 P.P.C. by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, for causing murder of Mst. Aisha and mounting murderous assault on other P.Ws. The learned trial Judge on 30‑11‑1980, convicted Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Arshad accused under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine and under section 307/34, P.P.C. to 3 years R.I. with fine. He, however, acquitted all the rest of the accused.

4. In appeal the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment dated 17‑2‑1993, acquitted Muhammad Arshad, and altered, the conviction of Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Yaqoob, petitioners from section 302/34 P.P.C. to 304 Part‑I, read with section 34 P.P.C. and reduced their sentences to ten years R.I. each. The Criminal Revision No.29/1981 filed by Mahmood complainant seeking enhancement of their sentences was dismissed.

5. The petitioners/convicts maintained that the prosecution failed to bring home their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular evidence was unreliable, motivated with enmity and lacked corroboration on material points. The observations made by the trial judge while evaluating the evidence and the High Court while disposing of the appeal, by the impugned judgment, entitled the petitioners to clear acquittal. On the contrary the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently urged that the learned Courts below misread evidence on the record. The observation made in the impugned judgments were uncalled for. Learned counsel also challenged the acquittal of Muhammad Arshad respondent and alteration of the conviction from section 302/34, P.P.C. to section 304 Part I read with section 34, P.P.C. and reduction in sentences awarded to Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Yaqoob respondents in the connected petition.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties who have criticised the impugned judgment in their own way. We find that the judgment of the High Court has certain features which would justify grant of leave to appeal in both of these petitions with a view to ensure that the principles applicable to the safe administration of criminal justice have been duly observed in the case. Hence leave to appeal is granted in both the petitions.

7. Bailable warrants shall issue against Muhammad Arshad (respondent No.2 in Cr.P.189/1993) in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of District/Duty Magistrate, Khanewal. N.H.Q./M‑1913/S Leave granted.