1994 PLP 1566 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1566 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1566 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1566 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1566 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑12‑1992 in Cr. Appeal No. 909 of 1989). Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention that High Court and Trial Court had not accepted the ocular testimony in respect of six out of seven persons put on trial and in the circumstances the rule of prudence required that the seventh person (present accused) should also not have been convicted unless independent corroboration with regard to the role ascribed to him in the occurrence was available and that no such confirmatory evidence existed on the record. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG.CJ.‑‑‑Seven persons, including the petitioner, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, on charges under sections 302 and 307, read with section 149, and section 148, Pakistan Penal Code, for causing the death of Khan Baig, deceased, and making murderous assault upon a number of persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the co‑accused but convicted the petitioner on the charge under section 302, ibid, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and payment of Rs.20,000 as fine. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the High Court. The complainant party also filed a revision petition calling in question the acquittal of the co‑accused and seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the appeal and the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner as well as the acquittal of the co‑accused. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The conviction of the petitioner rests entirely upon the ocular testimony of two eye‑witnesses, namely, Atta Muhammad (P.W.11) and Muhammad Khan (P.W.12). They were the sons of the deceased.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the High Court and the trial Court did not accept the ocular testimony in respect 6f six out of seven persons put on trial. In the circumstances, the rule of prudence required that the seventh person (that is, the petitioner) should also not have been convicted unless there was independent corroboration available with regard to the role ascribed to him in the occurrence. In his case there was no such confirmatory evidence on the record. In the circumstances, the petitioner should also have been given the benefit of doubt.
4. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. N.H.Q/M‑2039/S. Leave granted.