1984 PLP 1217 (SCMR)
FAROOQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1217 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Murder--Courts below found not to have acted upon important features of evidence such as sudden attack on deceased; role assigned to accomplices of accused; time of occurrence and nature of injuries other than fatal injury on person of deceased--Leave to appeal--Granted to re-appraise such features in evidence for safe dispensation of justice. --Evidence. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C.J. and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, J |
| Parties | FAROOQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | ORDER, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1217 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1217 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Murder--Courts below found not to have acted upon important features of evidence such as sudden attack on deceased; role assigned to accomplices of accused; time of occurrence and nature of injuries other than fatal injury on person of deceased--Leave to appeal--Granted to re-appraise such features in evidence for safe dispensation of justice. --Evidence. bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C.J. and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1217 (SCMR) (FAROOQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th February, 1984.
- Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 6-2-1984, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Appeal No.504 of 1981).
Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Murder--Courts below found not to have acted upon important features of evidence such as sudden attack on deceased; role assigned to accomplices of accused; time of occurrence and nature of injuries other than fatal injury on person of deceased--Leave to appeal--Granted to re-appraise such features in evidence for safe dispensation of justice. --[Evidence].
Judgment & Decree
Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th February, 1984. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J.‑‑ Upon examining the record', and the judgment of the High Court, we find that the Courts below' have not acted on an important feature in the evidence such as the emergence of the petitioner and his accomplices, namely Amir Aslam and Fayyaz Ahmad from the Baithak of Faiz Muhammad before launching an assault on Muhammad Sardar, deceased. The finding of the High Court in this regard is that the parties met "per chance" and the petitioner, who was feeling insulted on account of a suspected liaison of the deceased with his sister, all of a sudden attacked then deceased with a knife and effected his escape. Again the role assigned to his accomplices was disbelieved by the High Court, and they were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. Apparently this is also a feature which requires consideration as their implication with reference to definite roles affects the credibility of the witnesses. The incident allegedly occurred at about 5‑30 p.m. but, surprisingly enough, the stomach of the deceased was found empty which is also an exceptional feature for if it was to be accepted that the mid‑day meal was taken at about noon‑time then in that case there would be some digested meal in the stomach of the deceased. Lastly, there is one other injury on the person of the deceased caused by a blunt weapon which was not considered by the Courts below, in the context of the allegation that the petitioner had only caused a knife blow and that too all of a sudden, leaving no room for any altercation. This factor again shows that this injury was caused either with a fist blow or with a blunt‑weapon which has not been explained by the prosecution witnesses and coupled with it is the nature of the injury on the neck of the deceased, which could not have been caused in the manner suggested. All these features in the evidence require it to be reappraised for safe dispensation of justice. Accordingly, we would grant leave to appeal to the petitioner. S.Q. Petition dismissed.