2007S999 (PLP)
JALAL DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007S999 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | JALAL DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007S999 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007S999 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007S999 (PLP) (JALAL DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Abdul Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 6-4-2006 passed in Criminal Appeals Nos.579 and 789 of 2000 and Murder Reference No.218-T of 2002).
S. 302
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court against the accused in order to re-examine and reappraise the evidence with a view to ascertain whether the principles for safe administration of criminal justice laid down by Supreme Court had been fully adhered to.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 6-4-2006, acquitting the respondents of the charge of Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Umar Din committed on or about 12-2-1996 at about 10-00 a.m.
2. Besides respondent Manzoor Ahmad co-accused Ali Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Shafi were put on trial for the said crime. At the, conclusion of the trial, they were acquitted of the charge while respondent Manzoor Ahmad was found guilty and sentenced to death and compensation of Rs.1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased.
3. Unfortunate episode took place in the broad-daylight when the respondent duly armed with a .12 bore gun, accompanied by other co-accused, statedly fired at the deceased and decamped. High Court declined to accept the ocular evidence on the premises that presence of complainant Jalal Din P.W.3, father of the deceased and Raham Din P.W.4, father-in-law of the deceased, was doubtful and the F.I.R. was in fact recorded after detailed investigation into the crime, which could not be said to be prompt. Motive for commission of the crime relating to the innocence of respondent Manzoor Ahmad and the oath to be administered to Ramzan before the Punchayat of the village was also discarded by the High Court.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and tentatively examining the ocular as well as circumstantial evidence connecting the respondent with the commission of the crime, we do not feel persuaded to agree with the reasons and logic advanced by the High Court for acquittal of the respondent. Needless to point out, appeal against acquittal of co-accused Ali Ahmad and others filed before the High Court had failed and learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the same before this Court. We would; therefore, dismiss the petition as against respondents Ali Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Shafi as not pressed and grant leave to appeal against respondent Manzoor Ahmad in order to re-examine and reappraise the evidence with a view to ascertain, whether the principles for safe administration of criminal justice laid down by this Court have been fully adhered to.
5. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 shall issue against respondent Manzoor Ahmad to the satisfaction of the trial Court, who shall report compliance. N.H.Q./J-11/SC Leave granted.