1989SCMR409 (PLP)
KHAN BAHADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR409 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN BAHADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR409 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR409 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR409 (PLP) (KHAN BAHADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXIII, R. 2--Jail petition--Condonation of delay--Accused confined in jail--Delay of 22 days condoned in circumstances.
S. 302--Evidence, appreciation of--Identity of accused was not mistaken- Presence of eye-witnesses at place of occurrence was not doubted--Eye-witnesses charged accused for inflicting injuries to deceased and their version was fully corroborated by medico-legal report--No acute dispute existed between parties for implicating accused falsely--Motive established --Defence put forward was not convincing--Conviction of accused, HELD, was well-founded.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Identity of accused was not mistaken‑ Presence of eye‑witnesses at place of occurrence was not doubted‑‑Eye‑witnesses charged accused for inflicting injuries to deceased and their version was fully corroborated by medico‑legal report‑‑No acute dispute existed between parties for implicating accused falsely‑‑Motive established ‑‑Defence put forward was not convincing‑‑Conviction of accused, HELD, was well‑founded. OPINION ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 23‑2‑1988, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. has been maintained and has been allowed the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. 2.
2. The petition is reported to be barred by 22 days. Since the petitioner is confined in jail, the delay is condoned.
3. I have gone through the evidence and the judgments of the Courts below. Though the occurrence in this case had taken place at about midnight but there is hardly a possibility of mistaken identity of the petitioner in that he is residing ink the same locality, close to the house of the complainant and before inflicting the fatal injuries to the deceased had exchanged hot words with him and the complainant. The prosecution has relied upon the statements of Muhammad Sadiq (P.W. 4) and Zulfiqar (P.W. 5). The former is the brother of the deceased and has stamp of injuries on his person which are alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioner, therefore, his presence at the spot cannot be questioned. The latter resides adjacent to the house of the deceased and his reaching the spot at the crucial time cannot be ruled out. Both the eye‑witnesses have charged the petitioner for inflicting knife injuries to the deceased. Their version is fully corroborated by the medico‑legal report inasmuch as the deceased had as many as two tab and one cut wound injuries on his body. Except a dispute between the parties over a passage, no other acute dispute existed between the parties for implicating the petitioner falsely in the commission of the crime. The prosecution has also been able to establish the motive and the defence put forward by the petitioner, think is not convincing.
4. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of the petitioners well founded and the petition is liable to dismissal. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑I agree. M.A.K./K‑80,/S Petition dismissed.