1996 PLP 935 (SCMR)
INAYATULLAH KHAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 935 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Sajjad Ali Shah and |
| Parties | INAYATULLAH KHAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 935 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 935 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Sajjad Ali Shah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 935 (SCMR) (INAYATULLAH KHAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Asghar Khan Rokri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1994.
- Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Asghar Khan Rokri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions that evidence on record was insufficient to warrant conviction inasmuch as eye‑witnesses were brothers of the deceased whose presence at the spot was doubtful, background of enmity existed between the parties, three co ‑accused had been acquitted on the basis of same evidence and post‑mortem report had belied the ocular account. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention that the accused should not have been acquitted when direct evidence against him had been corroborated by positive report of Fire Arms Expert in proof of assertion that he had caused injuries to the deceased. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.
Petitioner Inayatullah Khan and three other co-accused were put on trial for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. and trial Court convicted and sentenced petitioner Inayatullah Khan to death and fine of Rs.5,000 or in default R.I. for 6 months. Co-accused Ghazi Khan was convicted under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.5,000 or in default R.I. for 3 months. Other two co-accused namely Tariq Khan and Noor Khan were acquitted by the trial Court.
2. It is alleged that incident took place at 5-45 a.m. when deceased Abaidullah and his brothers were netting quails in the land of Khan in the area of Gundi. Inayatullah Khan and his three accomplices named above came armed with guns and allerted Abdullah that revenge would be taken from him for abduction by him of Mst. Soorat who was claimed by Inayatullah as his wife Tariq Khan and Noor Khan fired one shot each at Abaidullah which went amiss. Ghazi Khan fired shot which hit Abaidullah on his left calf and Inayatullah fired shot which hit him on his chest. He fell down injured and died while on way to the hospital. During investigation four crime empties were secured from the spot and four guns were recovered from the accused persons. Trial Court convicted two and acquitted remaining two as stated above.
3. In the High Court, Inayatullah challenged his conviction and sentence of death. Complainant Mowaz Khan filed revision application for enhancement of fine of Inayatullah and sentence of Ghazi Khan to life imprisonment and also against acquittal of two co-accused. High Court has reduced sentence of Inayatullah from death to life imprisonment and in suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction, set aside conviction under section 307, P.P.C.~ and sentence of one year of Ghazi Khan.
4. Two petitions are filed in this Court, one by Inayatullah against his conviction and sentence and the other by complainant Mowaz Khan for enhancement of sentence of Inayatullah and against acquittal of co-accused. On behalf of petitioner Inayatullah, it is contended that evidence on the record is insufficient to warrant conviction inasmuch as eye-witnesses are brother of the deceased and their presence at the spot is doubtful and further there is background of enmity. On the basis of same evidence three co-accused have been acquitted. Post-mortem report belies claim of eye-witnesses that deceased had taken Sehri before the incident and deceased sustained two shots.
5. As against that on behalf of Mowaz Khan complainant, it is contended that Ghazi Khan should not have been acquitted, when in respect of him direct evidence was corroborated by positive report of Fire-Arms Expert in proof of assertion that he caused injuries to the deceased. In the circumstances we grant leave in both the petitions and scope of petition of complainant Mowaz Khan is limited to acquittal of Ghazi Khan only not in respect of other two co- accused namely Tariq Khan and Noor Khan who were acquitted by the trial Court. N.H.Q./I-220/S Leave granted.