2011 SCMR 1046 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1046 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Shakirullah Jan and Tariq Parvez Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1046 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1046 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Shakirullah Jan and Tariq Parvez Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1046 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21-5-2009 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 109 and 101 both of 2004 and Murder Reference No. 158 of 2004).
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
F.I.R. had been lodged within one hour of the occurrence
Accused was specifically charged for firing at the two deceased
Minor dispute regarding blockage of the passage could not be taken as sufficient to indicate serious enmity between the parties for involving the accused falsely in a double murder case
Eye-witnesses, though related to the deceased, were not inimical to accused
Mere delay in sending of recovered pistol to Forensic Science Laboratory in absence of evidence of tampering would not weaken its positive report
Pistol recovered at the behest of accused had matched with the crime empty, which had very strongly corroborated the ocular testimony
Leave to appeal was declined to accused in circumstances. Shahid Abbasi, Dy. P.-G., Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, J.
Petitioner Muhammad Ashraf is accused of case F.I.R. No.352 of 2003, registered at Police Station Fatehjang, dated 7-11-2003, District Attock. He, and his co-accused were charged for causing death of Saadat Khan and Tariq Mehmood deceased.
2. Learned trial Court after appraisal of evidence found him guilty for the offence of murder on two counts and therefore awarded him death sentence on two counts and to further pay an amount of Rs.100,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of each of the deceased.
3. F.I.R. was made by Abadat Khan (P.W.14) by stating that he and his son Tariq Mehmood were busy in their fields when the present petitioner and his co-accused Arshad Mehmood came to the spot. Muhammad Ashraf petitioner fired a shot with his .12 bore pistol which hit Saadat Khan deceased followed by another shot by him hitting deceased Tariq Mehmood and thereafter petitioner and his co-accused started simultaneously firing on the person of Tariq Mehmood and therefore the crime. Abadat Khan (P.W.14) and Noor Khan (P. W.15) appeared in support of the prosecutions' case by furnishing ocular account.
4. The .12 bore pistol was recovered on the pointation of the present petitioner which has later on matched with empty recovered from the spot. The Report of Firearms Expert is exhibited as Exh.PAA.
5. It is worth mentioning that Arshad Mehmood co-accused was acquitted of the charge as he was extended benefit of doubt.
6. We have heard leaned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab and scrutinized the available record.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that it was an un-witnessed crime, that the weapon of offence was sent with a considerable delay for examination and that same set of evidence has been disbelieved qua Arshad Mehmood acquitted accused, therefore the present petitioner is also entitled to acquittal.
8. Submission so made have been vehemently opposed by learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab on the ground that the role of the present petitioner is different than that of acquitted co-accused and that there was additional corroboration against the present petitioner in the shape of positive report of the Firearm Expert wherein the pistol recovered on his pointation, matched with the crime empty recovered from the spot.
9. Not only that the two Courts below have scrutinized the evidence and have reached on single conclusion that is the charge stand proved against the petitioner, we have once again gone deep into evidence and find that F.I.R. is made within one hour where two persons are charged but the present petitioner is more specifically charged for making firing at the two deceased.
10. Motive of the crime was a minor dispute regarding blockage of the passage which could not be taken as sufficient to state that there was serious enmity between the parties for which there should be false charge of double murder.
11. Two persons were killed for which the present petitioner is charged by two eyewitnesses who though related to the deceased but are not inimical to the present petitioner.
12. Mere delay in sending of recovered pistol in absence of evidence of tampering would not weaken the positive report.
13. Present petitioner has himself led the police party to the recovery of crime pistol which has matched with the crime empty, therefore, there was very strong corroboration against him conforming the ocular account furnished by P.W.14 and P.W.15.
14. We find no ground in this petition it is hold to be without any substance and same is dismissed. Leave refused. N.H.Q./M-4/SC Leave, refused.