2005 PLP 1645 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1645 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmed, C. J. and Qazi Muhammad Farooq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1645 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1645 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmed, C. J. and Qazi Muhammad Farooq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1645 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 12-5-2003 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No.9 of 2003).
Ss. 356, 452 & 354
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Victim of the attack as well as the witness had supported the prosecution case on all material particulars at the trial
Recovery of weapon of offence being only the corroborative piece of evidence to strengthen the ocular account, recovery of Chhuri from the accused having not been proved was insignificant in the presence of overwhelming ocular testimony against them
Prosecution case stood established against the accused beyond doubt
Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J.
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order dated 12-5-2003 whereby the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the criminal revision preferred on behalf of the petitioners maintaining their conviction and sentences on charges under sections 356, 452 and 354, Pakistan Penal Code with direction that all sentences would run concurrently and the petitioners would also be entitled to the benefit under section 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioners spelling out from case F.I.R. No.328, dated 25-12-2001 registered with Police Station Minchan Abad on charges under sections 324/354/337-F(ii)/336, Pakistan Penal Code is that on the fateful day the petitioners had tried to apprehend Mst. Asia Bibi in the fields on the suspicion that she was carrying on with Muhammad Afzal. Mst. Asia Bibi in order to save her life ran towards her house. Muhammad Ahmed armed with Chhuri along with Muhammad Fayyaz and Ashiq Ali followed her and ultimately Ashiq Ali caught hold both the arms of Mst. Asia while Muhammad Ahmed chopped off her nose with the knife and subsequently Ashiq Ali shaved her head with Chhuri. On hearing the hue and cry, the witnesses were attracted to the spot and had also tried to apprehend the culprits, but they managed to escape from the spot. At the trial, the witnesses and the victim of the attack had supported the prosecution case on all material particulars, and therefore, no exception can be taken to the dismissal of their revision.
3. The learned counsel mainly argued that since the recovery of Chhuri was not proved, therefore, the conviction in this case was not sustainable. We are afraid that the contention is devoid of force and is hereby repelled inasmuch as recovery of weapon of offence is only the corroborative piece of evidence to strengthen the ocular account. We have noticed that in this case overwhelming ocular account exists to connect the petitioners with the commission of crime and in our view the prosecution case stands established against the petitioners beyond an iota of doubt, therefore, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. N.H.Q./M-209/S Leave refused.