1975 PLP R150 (SCMR)
FIDA HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP R150 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FIDA HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal code (VLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP R150 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal code (VLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP R150 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP R150 (SCMR) (FIDA HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 7th October 1974.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated the 21st of March 1974, in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1973/Murder Reference No. 32 of 1973).
S. 302-Prosecution witness a brother of deceased--No ground for disbelieving testimony particularly where evidence corroborated by independent witness. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑--In this petition for special leave to appeal the petitioner has challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence of death under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Mst. Aisha, wife of P. W. 7 Muhammad Nawaz. The petitioner's grievance is that certain discrepancies and facts as disclosed in the evidence were not considered by the Courts below. The murder took place on the 8th of August 1971, at 8 a.m. is the house of the deceased while her husband was away. A first information report was lodged by P. W. Muhammad Nawaz on the same day at 1 p.m. The occurrence was witnessed by P. W. 8 Rab Nawaz, a brother of the deceased, and P. W. 9 Haq Nawaa, an independent person against whom there was no suggestion of any ill‑feeling or enmity with the petitioner. It has been contended that although P. W. Rab Nawaz said that there was a sheet of cloth with which the body of the deceased was found covered, there was nothing to show that the sheet was recovered gain this witness deposed that the cot of the deceased was blood‑stained, but the cot was not seized. It appears, however, that neither P. W. Dr. Rauf who had first examined the deceased at the hospital nor the Investigating Officer was asked about the sheet. Besides it is very likely that the deceased who was then still alive was taken to the hospital covered with some cloth. The Investigat ing Officer was also not asked anything about the cot. These omissions do not, in our opinion, furnish reasonable grounds for disbelieving the ocular evidence including that of the deceased's brother P. W. Rab Nawaz. P. W. Rab Nawaz denied having taken any loan from the petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve him merely because he is a brother of the deceased. Besides his evidence stands corroborated by the evidence of P. W. Haq Nawaz, an independent and disinterested witness. Both the witnesses have given good reasons for their presence at the place of occurrence. There is also discrepancy as to the exact place where the first informa tion report was recorded. This discrepancy, in our opinion, does not affect the ocular evidence. Similarly the discrepancy about the date of marriage, namely 6/7th August or 8th August, which furnished the reason for the presence of P. Ws. Haq Nawaz and Rab Nawaz at the place of occurrence did not affect their evidence. There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.