1987 PLP 1828 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1828 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1828 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1828 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1828 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Umar Qasuri, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 11th December, 1982 in Criminal Appeal No.935 of 1979). ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Petitioner, who was apprehended on spot by eye‑witnesses of occurrence convicted on charge of murdering his wife‑‑F.I.R. lodged within an hour‑‑Eye‑witnesses though closely related to deceased but not inimical towards petitioner‑‑Conviction upheld by High Court but capital sentence and fine awarded by trial Court was reduced to imprisonment for life‑‑Plea that it was an un-witnessed occurrence and eye‑witnesses were brought by police from L to K, having rightly been rejected by High Court, not entertained by Supreme Court‑‑No case having been made out for re‑appraisal of evidence, leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is filed by Muhammad Tufail petitioner against his conviction and sentence awarded by the Lahore High Court Lahore vide its judgment dated 11th December, 1982. The petitioner was tried for the murder of Mst. Surayya his wife under section 302, P.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge Kasur, who vide his judgment dated 7th July, 1979 sentenced him to death plus fine of Rs.5,
000. On appeal the Lahore High Court Lahore vide its judgment dated 11th December, 1982 maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence of the petitioner from death to imprisonment for life. The occurrence took place at 1‑45 p.m. on 11th October, 1974 at Jamaat Pura, Kasur City. F.I.R. was lodged by Chiragh Din P.W. father of the deceased at 2‑40 p.m. on the same day. The petitioner was apprehended on the spot by the eye‑witnesses and on the arrival of the investigating officer was formally arrested on the same day. The recovery in this case is human blood‑stained Toka which was taken away from the petitioner at the time of his arrest as well as sleepers of the petitioner which were also stained with human blood. There are three eye‑witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Chiragh Din P.W. father of the deceased, Amanat P.W. brother of the deceased and Muhammad Shafi P.W. brother‑in‑law of the deceased. The motive is that there had been a tussle between the petitioner and his wife namely the deceased about her ornaments. The petitioner is stated to have sold out her ornaments and misappropriated the money. Chiragh Din P.W. father of the deceased loaned him Rs.2,000 with which the petitioner installed a turning machine and promised to make good the loss caused by the sale of ornaments to the deceased. Few days before the present occurrence the deceased had sent a message to her father that the petitioner was maltreating her. On the fateful day the father went to the house of the petitioner at Kasur and met one Ahmad Din depot‑holder and complained to him about the attitude of the petitioner. When they were returning to the house of the petitioner they were attracted by the shrieks of the deceased. The eye‑witnesses entered the house and found that the accused was giving blows with Toka on the face and neck of the deceased. They over‑powered the petitioner. The deceased died on the spot. Blood‑stained Toka was snatched from the hand of the petitioner until he was formally arrested by the police from the spot, According to the medical evidence there were 21 cut wounds on the face, head and neck of the deceased as well as other parts of th body which indicates that she had been given blows by a sharp‑edged heavy weapon mercilessly. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that it was an un-witnessed occurrence and that the eye‑witnesses in the instant case had been brought by the police from Lahore to Kasur. According to the learned counsel they had not seen the occurrence. This argument was also raised before the Lahore High Court as has been observed in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment, and it has rightly been rejected. The F.I.R. was lodged within an hour of the occurrence. Even if the eye‑witnesses were closely related to the deceased, they were not inimical towards the petitioner as the mother of the petitioner and the mother of the deceased i.e. wife of Chiragh Din P.W. were real sisters. In the light of the above discussion no case is made out for re‑appraisal of the evidence. The result is that there is no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.I./M‑161/S Petition dismissed.