2005 PLP 1461 (SCMR)
ZIA ULLAH alias JAJJ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1461 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Chairman, Hamid Ali Mirza, Abdul Hameed Dogar, Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood and Dr. Rashid Ahmad Jullundhari, Members |
| Parties | ZIA ULLAH alias JAJJ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1461 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1461 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Chairman, Hamid Ali Mirza, Abdul Hameed Dogar, Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood and Dr. Rashid Ahmad Jullundhari, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1461 (SCMR) (ZIA ULLAH alias JAJJ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th April, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 3-5-1999, passed by the Federal Shariat Court, in Jail Cr. A. No.158/L of 1997 and Cr.M.R. No.5/L of 1998). --S. 17
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103 & 154
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.22
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contentions of the accused that the FIR was recorded after preliminary investigation and allegation with regard to Haraabah was inserted therein by means of interpolation
Further contention was that the eye-witnesses were not natural and probable witnesses and their statements were also fraught with improvements, discrepancies and contradictions
Accused further contended that the recovery of crime pistol from him was doubtful as it was not made in presence of any independent witness
Accused also contended that the test identification parade was defective because delay in holding the same had not been explained satisfactorily, and role attributed to the accused was not stated by the witnesses
Identification thus, had no evidentiary value as held by Supreme Court in case titled Mehmood Ahmad vs. The State, reported as 1995 SCMR 127 and separate identification parades for each accused ought to have been held or omission to follow such requirement explained in view of the observations made by Supreme Court in case titled Lal Pasand vs. The State reported as PLD 1981 SC 142
Accused also contended that he was awarded sentence of death whereas his co-accused persons were acquitted on the same evidence. Mehmood Ahmad v. The State 1995 SCMR 127 and Lal Pasand v. The State PLD 1981 SC 142 ref. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgment from different angles and in the process raised the following contentions:
(i) The F.I.R. was recorded after preliminary investigation and the allegation with regard to Haraabah in M.S. Medical Stores was inserted therein by means of interpolation. (ii) The eye-witnesses were not natural and probable witnesses and their statements were also fraught with improvements, discrepancies and contradictions. (iii) Recovery of the crime pistol from the petitioner was doubtful as it was not made in presence of any independent witness. (iv) The test identification parade was defective because the delay in holding the same had not been explained satisfactorily, the role attributed to the accused was not stated by the witnesses, therefore, their identification had no evidentiary value as held in Mehmood Ahmad v. The State 1995 SCMR 127 and separate identification parades for each accused ought to have been held or omission explained in view of the observations made in Lal Pasand v. The State PLD 1981 SC 141. (v) The petitioner was sentenced to death whereas his co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence.
2. Leave to appeal is granted to reappraise the prosecution evidence in the light of the above contentions and the principles laid down by this Court for appraisal of evidence in criminal cases. M.H./Z-131/S Leave granted. ***