2002 PLP 1343 (SCMR)
GHULAM FARID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1343 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J |
| Parties | GHULAM FARID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1343 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1343 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1343 (SCMR) (GHULAM FARID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Sardar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23‑7‑2001 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in Criminal Appeal No.. 367 of 1998 and Murder Reference No.42 of 1998). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Reappraisal of evidence‑‑‑Prosecution witnesses were not residents of the area where the occurrence had taken place and their presence on the spot was doubtful=‑ Court witness on whom the murderous assault was made did not support the prosecution story‑‑‑Death sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court was set aside by the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Supreme Court after re‑appraisal of evidence concluded that the findings of the High Court were based on correct, elaborate and careful appraisal of evidence which was in accordance with the principles laid down by superior Courts for safe administration of criminal justice‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court as the same did not suffer from any illegality‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 23‑7‑2001 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench through which appeal filed by respondent No.l‑Ghulam Mustafa against his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. and sentence of death, recorded and awarded by the trial Court has been accepted and the said conviction and sentence set aside.
2. The facts of the case are that Ghulam Mustafa respondent No. l alongwith Ghulam Mujtaba sons of Bashir Ahmed and Ghulam Sarwar son of Karim Bukhsh were tried in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Adu Camp at Muzaffargarh for causing death of Hafiz Ahmed Yar and murderous assault upon Mst. Manzooran and Mst. Razia. The trial Court through judgment dated 10‑10‑1998 convicted respondent No.l‑Ghulam Mustafa under section 302, P.P.C. and awarded him death sentence with a fine of Rs.50,000 in default whereof to undergo R.I. for three years. He was also directed to pay Rs.50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased by way of compensation as provided under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. in default whereof to undergo R.I. for three years. Ghulam Mujtaba and Ghulam Sarwar, were however, acquitted.
3. The appeal filed by Ghulam Mustafa and Murder Reference have been decided through the impugned judgment dated 23‑7‑2001 by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby the said Murder 'Reference has been answered in negative and the appeal of Ghulam Mustafa accepted and his conviction and sentence set aside.
4. The learned Judges of the High Court came to the conclusion that f the evidence of the present petitioner/complainant who appeared as P.W.2, and Muhammad Hussain P.W.3 who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence is not trustworthy as their presence on the spot was highly doubtful because they were not residents of the area where the occurrence took place. Mst. Manzoor Mai on whom murderous assault was allegedly made was examined by the trial Court as C. W.1 and she did not support the prosecution version but narrated a different story.
5. We have gone through the reasonings given by the learned Judges of the High Court in the impugned judgment and also the evidence produced by the prosecution and in particular the statement of Mst. Manzoor Mai/C.W.1 and find that the findings have been based on correct, elaborate and careful appraisal of evidence which in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior Courts for safe administration of criminal justice, as such, do not suffer from any illegality.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being meritless is hereby dismissed and leave refused. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./G‑113/S Petition dismissed.