2017 PLP 142 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD-Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 142 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Iqbal Hameedur Rahman and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IRSHAD-Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal trial |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 142 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal trial as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 142 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Iqbal Hameedur Rahman and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 142 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IRSHAD-Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 6.5.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.178-J of 2009 and Murder Reference No. 202 of 2009)
Occurrence took place during the night and the natural witnesses of the occurrence, i.e. the wife and children of deceased had not been produced before the trial court as eyewitnesses
Eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution were chance witnesses and the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time had never been established before the trial court through any independent evidence
Person who could have established the motive set up by the prosecution was not produced before the Trial Court
Different motive had been set up by the prosecution during the trial but the said motive had not been confirmed by one of the alleged eye-witnesses
Alleged recovery of weapon from the custody of accused was legally inconsequential because admittedly the crime-empties had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after arrest of accused and after recovery of the weapon from his custody
High Court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt to accused
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. Asjad Javed Ghural, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
None has entered appearance to prosecute this petition on behalf of the petitioner nor any request has been received seeking an adjournment.
2. After going through the memorandum of this petition, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, and the relevant record of the case, we have noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place at 11.00 P.M. during a night and the natural witnesses of the occurrence, i.e. the wife and children of Muhammad Sher deceased had not been produced before the trial court as eye-witnesses. We have further observed that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution i.e. Muhammad Irshad complainant (PW8) and Rab Nawaz (PW9) were chance witnesses and the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time had never been established before the trial court through any independent evidence. The motive set up by the prosecution could have best been proved through production of. Mst. Sumaira Bibi before the trial court but she had not been produced by the prosecution. During the trial a different motive had been set up by the prosecution, but the said motive had not been confirmed by Rab Nawaz (PW9). The alleged recovery of weapon from the custody of respondent No. 1 was legally inconsequential because admittedly the crime-empties had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after arrest of respondent No. 1 and after recovery of the weapon from his custody. In these circumstances the High Court had decided to extend the benefit of doubt to respondent No. 1 and we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said course adopted by the High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/M-63/SC Petition dismissed.