SCMR 2019

2019 PLP 1309 (SCMR)

SALEEM ZADA and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petitions Nos. 67-P and 68-P of 2014, decided on 10th June, 2019.
Honorable Judges
Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2019 PLP 1309 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Parties SALEEM ZADA and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1309 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1309 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1309 (SCMR) (SALEEM ZADA and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Sahibzada Asadullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in both cases).
  • Zia ur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in both cases).

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the judgment dated 29.05.2014 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) Sawat in Criminal Appeal No.29-A of 2012)

Ss. 302 & 324

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd

Reappraisal of evidence

Fate of the prosecution case was primarily hinged upon the statement of the injured witness and the driver of the public vehicle wherein the attack took place

Investigative conclusions and medical evidence were in line with the statement of the injured witness

Durations given in the crime report as well as by the doctor coincided with the time of occurrence

Case was registered with promptitude, and previous bad blood/enmity had not seriously been contested

Statement of the injured witness, the sole eye-witness, was confidence inspiring

Being injured, presence of injured witness at the scene of occurrence could not be doubted

Driver of the vehicle, though reticent in his deposition, nonetheless, had unambiguously confirmed circumstances where under the occurrence took place

Cross examination on both the injured witness and the driver remained inconsequential and as such convictions and sentences awarded to the accused persons consequent thereupon did not call for interference

Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused.

Judgment & Decree

QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.

Saleem Zada, Khawat Shah and Swat Shah, petitioners in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.67-P/2014 alongside Sher Zamin, respondent in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.68-P/2014 were tried for committing qatl-i-amd of Pir Zada as well as, attempt on Bahri Zaman alias Bahrey, PW; they were returned a guilty verdict by the trial Court vide judgment dated 7.2.2012. A learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court acquitted Sher Zamin from the charge, however, maintained convictions and sentences consequent thereupon of the remainder vide impugned judgment dated 29.5.2014; this brings the complainant and the convicts before us; both issues with a common thread are being decided through this single judgment.

2. In the backdrop of previous enmity, on eventful day i.e. 26.11.2010 at 4.30 p.m., the petitioners and the respondent intercepted Pir Zada deceased and Bahri Zaman, PW while on board a public vehicle; forcibly de-boarded, they were dealt with hatchet blows as well as fire shots, in consequence whereof, Pir Zada succumbed to the injuries at the crime scene while the complainant with multiple injuries survived the assault. Incident was reported at the hospital and a formal case was registered 6.30 p.m. at Police Station Gagra, situated, 9/10 kilometers from the venue. The accused claimed trial, pursuant whereto, prosecution produced Bahri Zaman, PW-1 alongside Taj Habib Gul, PW-2 to bring home the charge; the latter is driver of the vehicle. Fate of the prosecution case is primarily hinged upon the statement of Bahri Zaman, PW-1. Taj Habib Gul, PW-2, driver of the vehicle though confirmed the episode, however, had not identified the assailants so as to establish their culpability. Investigative conclusions and medical evidence are in line with the statement of Bahri Zaman, PW-1; durations given in the crime report as well as by the doctor coincide with the time of occurrence; the case was registered with a remarkable promptitude; previous bad blood has not seriously been contested; it is on the basis of these pieces of evidence that the accused have been found guilty of the crime. We have gone through the statement of Bahri Zaman, the sole eye-witness and found him most confidence inspiring; he alone can sustain the charge; being injured, his presence cannot be doubted. Driver of the vehicle, though reticent in his deposition, nonetheless, has unambiguously confirmed circumstances whereunder the occurrence took place. Cross-examination on both the witnesses remained inconsequential and as such convictions and sentences consequent thereupon do not call for interference. Acquittal of Sher Zamin, respondent, seemingly out of abundant caution, particularly having regard to his mute presence does not offend any principle of law; there do not exist extra ordinary grounds to recall freedom. Resultantly, these petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal refused. MWA/S-33/SC Petitions dismissed.