2004 PLP 202 (SCMR)

JAVED IQBAL, J.

This jail petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13-7-2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as narrated by Ghulam Qasim, complainant (P.W.4) are to the effect that at about noon time he alongwith his son Munir Ahmad; Muhammad Ayyub and Ghulam Sarwar were sitting under shadow of trees in front of their house when Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Ramzan reached there and asked his son Munir Ahrnad to accompany them to Bahawalprtr. Munir Ahmad has asked the complainant that he would return in the evening and when he did not return, the complainant alongwith P. Ws. started searching Munir Ahmad and on their way they met Abdul Sattar and Jamil Ahmad; P.Ws. who told them that at about Asar Wela Munir Ahmad was seen by them alongwith Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Ramzan. It was further alleged that when Munir Ahmad did not return for two days the complainant alongwith aforesaid P. Ws. went to Basti Kumharan and met Muhammad Amin father of Muhammad Ramzan where Muhammad Ramzan and-Muhammad Siddique were present, who told them that on 3-8-1996 when-they took Munir Ahmad with them and were passing near a well, -both of them pushed him in the well and murdered him by throwing bricks on him. The complainant alongwith P.Ws. went to the well and saw a dead body which was identified by complainant and his other companions. Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Siddique were tried to capture but they both fled away. The, motive as alleged by the complainant was that Muhammad Ramzan had illicit relations with Muhammad Siddique about which his son had informed the grandfather of Muhammad Siddique and said Muhammad Siddique was given beating by his grandfather. Muhammad Siddique told this fact to Muhammad Ramzan and both of them made a plan to kill Munir Ahmad and at the pretext of taking him to Bahawalpur had intentionally murdered him in the manner as stated hereinabove. On 18-8-1996 Muhammad Aslam (given up) and 9habbir Ahmad (P.W.10) produced Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Siddique who made confessional statements. After completion of necessary investigation the petitioner alongwith Muhammad Siddique was sent up for trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Liaquatpur, District Bahawalpur. The charge was framed on 25-5-1997 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On conclusion whereof vide judgment dated 3-4-1999 Muhammad Siddique was convicted under section. 306, P.P.C. read with section 308, P,.P.C., as being minor, and sentenced to 14 years' R.I. and was also imposed Diyat to the tune of Rs.251,625.04 to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Ramzan was convicted under sections 302(b)/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to death as Tazir. He was also ordered to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to further undergo six months' R.I. Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal bearing No.38 of 1999 was filed before Lahore . High Court, Lahore, which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment, hence this petition on behalf of Muhammad Ramzan.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length who inter alia, contended that the prosecution evidence which has come on record has not been examined in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that heavy reliance- has been placed on extra-judicial confession in violation of case-law as reported in case titled Nasreen Akhtar v. State 2000 SCMR 1634. It is also pointed out that grave contradictions were not taken into consideration which resulted in serious prejudice. It is also pointed out that the statements of interested witnesses have been considered and relied upon without having independent corroboration. It is also mentioned that the last seen evidence has been relied upon in contravention of the principle as embodied in case titled Muhammad Amin v. The State 2000 SCMR 1784. The contention as raised hereinabove needs consideration. We are, therefore, inclined to grant leave in this petition. N.H.Q./M-550/S Leave granted.