1988 PLP 385 (SCMR)
PIRAN DITTA — Petitioner Versus QADIR BDX and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 385 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | PIRAN DITTA — Petitioner Versus QADIR BDX and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 385 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 385 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 385 (SCMR) (PIRAN DITTA — Petitioner Versus QADIR BDX and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 1987.
- M.M.Saad Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for the State (in Cr.P. No.198 of 1983).
Headnotes / Summary
(From the orders dated 26-4-1983 passed in Criminal Appeal No.12/81 (BWP)/Criminal Revision No.7/81 (BWP) and Cri. Appeal No-13/81 (BWP)/Crl. Rev. No.7/81 (BWP) respectively).
S.302/34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Appraisal of evidence-- Conviction under S.302/34, P.P.C. based on ocular testimony of eye-witnesses and recovery of blood-stained weapons--High Court holding that motive was not established; eye-witnesses who belonged to a different village had not satisfactorily explained their presence at the spot at relevant time, and doubting credibility of recovery evidence and Investigating Officer, set aside conviction of accused--High Court having given substantial reasons for not accepting ocular testimony and rejecting recovery evidence and there being sufficient basis for taking view that motive was not satisfactorily proved, no case for grant of leave to appeal was made out--Petition dismissed. M.M.Saad Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for the State (in Cr.P. No.198 of 1983).
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 26-4-83 of the Lahore High Court whereby the conviction of the respondents under section 302, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code, recorded by the Sessions Judge at Bahawalpur, was set aside and they were acquitted. The petitioner is a nephew of Shah Muhammad who was alleged to have been killed by the respondents.
2. One Mst. Ghulam Fatima was a widow. She owned about 60 bighas of land. On account of the property owned by her a number of persons including Qadir Bakhsh, respondent, wanted to marry her but she rejected their suits and instead married Shah Muhammad deceased. The respondents were alleged to be unhappy over this marriage. This was stated to be the motive for the occurrence.
3. It was alleged by the prosecution that on 27-4-80, at about Maghrib time, Shah Muhammad deceased was busy in irrigating his land. The respondents came there. Qadir Bakhsh and Iqbal were carrying chhuris while Muhammad Aslam and Nazir Ahmad were armed with hatchets. They attacked the deceased with their weapons and in the process cut off his hands. On hearing the alarm, Khan Muhammad (PW9) and Piran Ditta, cousin and nephew of the deceased, and one Rafiq reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Shah Muhammad deceased died shortly after receipt of the injuries. Piran Ditta went to Police Station Bahawalpur and lodged the first information report at 10 P.M. During the course of investigation the respondents were alleged to have helped the police in recovering their weapons which were later found to be stained with human blood.
4. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge of causing the death of the deceased and alleged that they had been falsely implicated. They did not produce any witness in their defence.
5. At the trial the prosecution relied upon the testimony of Piran Ditta (PW8) and Khan Muhammad (PW9) as well as the evidence relating to the recovery of blood-stained weapons. The trial Court found the ocular as well as the recovery evidence credible and accordingly convicted the respondents of an offence under section 302, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to pay fines.
6. On appeal by the respondents, the High Court found that the motive had not been established; that the eye-witnesses belonged to a different village and had no satisfactory explanation for their presence at the spot at the relevant time and that the recovery evidence was of doubtful validity. It also observed that the investigating officer had been dishonest. Accordingly, it accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents and acquitted them of the charge against them.
7. We have heard the learned counsel and find that the High Court has given substantial reason for not accepting the ocular testimony and rejecting the recovery evidence. There was also sufficient basis for taking the view that the motive had not been satisfactorily proved. In the circumstances, no case for the grant of leave has been made out. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. M .I /P-241 S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.