2012 PLP 68 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 68 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 68 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 68 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 68 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 25-10-2010 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No.1616 of 2010).
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302
Counter version
Trial Court in its judgment found that eye-witnesses produced by prosecution had shown reckless disregard for the truth and it was the complainant party which had aggressed against accused party
In view of such findings recorded and conclusions arrived at by Trial Court the High Court had wrongly refused to consider such aspect of the case by maintaining that the same required deeper appreciation of evidence on record which was not called for while suspending the sentence
Question of culpability of accused would require serious reconsideration at the time of hearing of his main appeal before High Court
Sentence passed by Trial Court against accused was suspended by Supreme Court and he was released on bail. Asjad Javed Ghural, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Through this petition Muhammad Yousaf petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 25-10-2010 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 1616 of 2010 whereby an application submitted by the petitioner seeking suspension of his sentence and admission to bail during the pendency of the his appeal was dismissed.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant record we have observed that admittedly the petitioner had not caused any injury to Muhammad Afzal deceased and according to the prosecution he stood saddled with the responsibility of giving a blow from the butt of his pistol on the forehead of Muhammad Yasir (P.W.9). During the investigation instead of a pistol the investigating agency had recovered a chhurri from the petitioner's possession. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court on 31-5-2010 showed that the allegation levelled by the prosecution against the petitioner regarding causing an injury to Muhammad Yasir (P.W.9) was found to be "fake and concocted" and the learned trial Court had expressly concluded that none of the so-called three injured prosecution witnesses was actually present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. The learned trial Court had also found that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution had shown reckless disregard for the truth and also that as a matter of fact it was the complainant party of this case which had aggressed against the accused party. In view of such findings recorded and conclusions arrived at by the learned trial court we have felt surprised that the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had refused to consider such aspects of the case by maintaining that the same required deeper appreciation of the evidence on record which was not called for at that stage. In the wake of the above mentioned conclusions of the learned trial Court we have felt sanguine that the question of culpability of the petitioner would require serious reconsideration at the time of hearing of his main appeal before High Court.
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and resultantly, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court against Muhammad Yousaf petitioner is suspended and he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. M.H./M-71/SC Sentence suspended.