2002 PLP 1073 (SCMR)

(a) murder of his brother Muhammad Zafar‑deceased on 2‑7‑1992 at about 10‑30 p.m. in Chak No. 193/GB, about 8 miles from police Station Memun Kanjan ?????.; (b) a daughter of his sister i.e. .Mst. Farzana (given up P.W.) staying with her maternal uncles in Chak No‑193/GB having come from village Mahmood Kot of Garh Maharaja District Jhang ???????.; (c) Mst. Farzana‑.having told them that Muhammad Arshad‑petitioner as a man of bad character ??????.; (d) his brother/Muhammad Zafar‑deceased went out of his house at 10-30 P.M. on 2‑7‑1992 and found Muhammad Arshad‑petitioner/accused standing there ???.; (e) Muhammad Zafar and Muhammad Arshad exchanged hot words and started grappling with each other????.; (f) on hearing the alarm, he went out where Ashraf (P.W.10) and Sarwar (given up P.W.) also came out ??????..; (g) Muhammad Arshad‑accused/petitioner then took out a pistol and fired at Muhammad War hitting him on his front chest ????.; (h) Muhammad Arshad‑accused/petitioner ran away from the place of occurrence ???and (i) after a short while Muhammad Zafar succumbed to the injuries recorded by him ????.. He has criticised the entire prosecution evidence leading to the passing of the impugned judgment by the High Court on, among others, the grounds that: ...... (j) the plea of right of self‑defence taken by his client at the earliest was not considered by either the trial Court or even the High Court in its true perspective in that: ........ (a) use of revolver by the petitioner was also admitted by him ????..; (b) he had even made his' confessional statement at the earliest ????as also (c) the plea of right of self‑defence was not brought to bear upon the result of the prosecution case ....and (ii) petitioner's?? answers to Questions Nos.2, 4, 5, 9 and 12 respectively, in?????? his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. are sufficient to knock the bottom out of the prosecution case.

3. Referring to Muddassar alias Jimmi v. The State (1996 SCMR 3) it is contended that Courts below are in error of law in not specifying the relevant subsection of section 302, P.P.C. whereunder his 'client was convicted and sentenced and that such specification of the relevant provision is a requirement of section 367, Cr.P.C. which the Courts cannot afford to do without. He also made a reference to Sultan Khan v. Sher Khan and others (PLD 1991 SC 520) to contend that exculpatory part of a confessional statement of an accused cannot be excluded from consideration by the concerned fora. Mr. Bhatti placed reliance upon Javaid v. The State (PLD 1994 SC 679) and Muhammad Nazir v. Tariq and another (1992 SCMR 983) and contended that the Courts below are in error of law in rejecting the plea' of defence first and thereafter dealing with the prosecution evidence for convicting and sentencing the petitioner as above.

4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above questions. N.H.Q./M‑369/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.