2007 PLP 1819 (SCMR)
FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1819 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. Abdul Hameed Dogar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1819 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1819 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. Abdul Hameed Dogar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1819 (SCMR) (FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Tariq Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- 2. Mr. Tariq Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of the State. With the assistance of learned counsel we have gone through the impugned judgment, statements of eye-witnesses and other material available on record. Since both the eye-witnesses have involved the petitioner in the commission of offence and their statements get fully corroborated with the medical evidence, therefore, we are of the opinion that petitioner has rightly been found guilty for the commission of offence, as such no interference is called for in the impugned judgment.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-10-2004 passed by Balochistan High Court, Sibi Bench, in Criminal A.T.A. No.(S)28 of 2002).
S. 302(b)
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Medical evidence and ocular account
Accused was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment by Trial Court
Both the eye-witnesses had involved accused in commission of offence and their statements were fully corroborated with medical evidence
Trial Court had rightly found the accused guilty for commission of offence
Supreme Court declined to interfere with conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court
Leave to appeal was refused. Tariq Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
Instant petition has been filed against the judgment dated 30th October, 2004 passed by the Balochistan High Court Sibi Bench whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as a result whereof judgment dated 25th September, 2002 passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Turbat, awarding conviction/sentence to the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. read with section 7(a) of A.T.A., 1997, R.I. for life with payment of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the L.Rs. of the deceased, was maintained, Stated allegation against the petitioner is that he committed the offence of murder of his wife with a pistol in presence of two witnesses i.e. Ali Hassan (P.W.3) and Mehr (P.W.4). After the registration of F.I.R., one crime-empty and a pistol, used for the commission of offence, recovered from the possession of the accused, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, report of which was received in positive as such on completion of trial petitioner was found guilty for the commission of offence. Learned High Court op having examined the case thoroughly .concurred with the, judgment of learned trial Court, however, observed that petitioner is entitled for the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Mr. Tariq Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of the State. With the assistance of learned counsel we have gone through the impugned judgment, statements of eye-witnesses and other material available on record. Since both the eye-witnesses have involved the petitioner in the commission of offence and their statements get fully corroborated with the medical evidence, therefore, we are of the opinion that petitioner has rightly been found guilty for the commission of offence, as such no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Petition is dismissed and leave declined. M.H./P-16/SC Petition dismissed.