SCMR 2021

2021 PLP 1494 (SCMR)

STATE through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar — Petitioner Versus AMANAT KHAN and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No.30-P of 2014, decided on 6th July, 2021.
Honorable Judges
Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2021 PLP 1494 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Parties STATE through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar — Petitioner Versus AMANAT KHAN and others — Respondents
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1494 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1494 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1494 (SCMR) (STATE through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar — Petitioner Versus AMANAT KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Muhammad Nisar, Additional A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the judgment dated 20.02.2014 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr. A. No.78-P of 2013)

S. 302(b)

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)

Qatl-i-amd

Petition for leave to appeal challenging acquittal

Accused was convicted by Trial Court under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to death, however on appeal the High Court set-aside the conviction and sentence of accused

Contentions on behalf of prosecution that in the face of overwhelming evidence furnished by natural witnesses having no axe to grind with the accused, there was no occasion for the High Court to acquit the accused from the charge, squarely structured on 'proof beyond doubt'; that the impugned view of the High Court, seemingly based upon various circumstances, considered by it as suspect, mostly related to peripheral or investigative flaws, with no bearing upon the preponderance of ocular account furnished by the witnesses who had satisfactorily explained their presence at the spot; that in the wake of accused's absconsion, a negative forensic report did not adversely affect the prosecution's case nor non-mentioning of specific caliber of the weapon could destroy the intrinsic value of the testimony that successfully withstood the test of cross-examination, particularly having regard to the criminal record of the accused

Supreme Court granted leave to consider the said contentions and to reappraise the entire evidence.

Judgment & Decree

QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.

In broad daylight, Javed Ali Shah, 40, was shot dead within the precincts of Police Station Lahore District Swabi; First Information Report was lodged by his uncle Syed Sardar Shah (PW-3) wherein he blamed the respondent, a previous convict, as the sole culprit, in the backdrop of a previous altercation. Autopsy conducted at 1:05 p.m. confirmed four entry wounds with corresponding exits. Respondent stayed away from the law and was finally spotted in a prison at Takhat Bhai wherefrom he was transposed as an accused in the present case; pursuant to a disclosure, he led to the recovery of a .30 caliber pistol, however, incompatible with the casings secured from the spot. A learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 31.01.2013 convicted him under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 with the sentence of death alongside a direction to pay compensation, overturned by a Division Bench of Peshawar High Court Peshawar vide impugned judgment dated 20.02.2014, vires whereof, are being assailed on the grounds that in the face of overwhelming evidence furnished by natural witnesses having no axe to grind, there was no occasion for the High Court to acquit the respondent from the charge, squarely structured on 'proof beyond doubt'. It is next argued that the impugned view of the High Court, seemingly based upon various circumstances, considered by it as suspect, mostly relate to peripheral or investigative flaws, with no bearing upon the preponderance of ocular account furnished by the witnesses who had satisfactorily explained their presence at the spot; they do not seem to have an axe to grind by substituting an innocent with the guilty. It is lastly argued that in the wake of respondent's absconsion, a negative forensic report did not adversely effect the prosecution's case nor non-mentioning of specific caliber of the weapon could destroy the intrinsic value of the testimony that successfully withstood the test of cross-examination, particularly having regard to the formidable past, hounding the respondent. Leave is granted to reappraise the entire evidence with a view to secure the ends of justice. Send for the respondent through bailable warrant of arrest in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount, returnable to the Assistant Registrar of this Court at Peshawar, to be executed through Station House Officer, within a fortnight. MWA/S-37/SC Leave granted.