1994 PLP 944 (SCMR)
Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 944 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and |
| Parties | Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 944 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 944 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 944 (SCMR) (Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate‑on‑Record and M. Nemat Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 7‑7‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Rev. Petition No. 46 of 1991 read with Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Contention that the occurrence had taken place in broad daylight and the case being of a single accused, High Court was not justified in discarding the evidence of the eye‑witness who could in no case substitute the accused for the real culprit, required examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑‑Mst. Saeeda Begum, sister of Mazhar Ali deceased, seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 7‑7‑1993 whereby the appeal of the respondent challenging his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000 under section 302 of the P.P.C. was allowed and her revision petition for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent was dismissed.
2. The respondent was tried on the allegation that on 17‑7‑1989 at 12‑30 noon he fired at Mazhar Ali deceased near the canal bridge at Baseerpur Road as a result of which he died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Ahmad Din, Sohna and Muzaffar Ali P.Ws. At the trial Ahmad Din and Sohna turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Muzaffar Ali, real brother of the deceased and first cousin of the respondent, however, supported the prosecution saying that the respondent fired at the deceased thrice as a result of which he died at the spot.
3. The respondent denied the allegation and stated that it was an unwitnessed occurrence and he was falsely involved due to enmity with Muzaffar Ahmed P.W.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the occurrence took place in the broad daylight and it being the case of a single accused the High Court was not justified in discarding the evidence of Muzaffar who would in no case substitute the respondent for the real culprit. The contention requires examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Okara be issued against the respondent. N.H.Q./S‑808/S Leave granted.