1991 PLP R11 (SCMR)
ZAFAR HUSSAIN BALOCH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus EJAZ AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP R11 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | ZAFAR HUSSAIN BALOCH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus EJAZ AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP R11 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP R11 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP R11 (SCMR) (ZAFAR HUSSAIN BALOCH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus EJAZ AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l to 3.
- Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Reard for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 5‑3‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.220 of 1987). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Occurrence took place fairly late in the evening far away from houses of eye‑witnesses‑‑‑Explanation offered by eye‑witnesses for their presence at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time was dubious‑‑‑Delay of 24 hours in lodging F.I.R. had not been satisfactorily explained‑‑‑Leave to appeal to examine propriety of the acquittal of respondents was consequently refused. Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Reard for the State. Date of gearing: 27th January, 1990.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Respondents Nos.2 and 3 were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan of an offence under section 302, read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code but were acquitted. The State preferred an appeal before the High Court but it was dismissed. The petitioner who is the brother of the person killed, seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. According to the prosecution, Muhammad Aslam deceased and respondent No.l quarrelled with each other about a month prior to the occurrence when the former forbade the latter from visiting his shop: To take revenge for this incident, on 19‑8‑86 at 10/11 p.m. respondents Nos.1 to 3 caught hold of the deceased in the area of Chah Goristanwala in village Loothar. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 were armed with hatchets while respondent No.1 had a pistol with him. Respondents Nos.1 and 3 gave hatchet blows to the deceased while respondent No.1 fired‑at him. The left leg of the deceased was severed. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by Zafar Hussain (petitioner) and Pir Bakhsh.
3. The deceased was taken to Nishtar Hospital at Multan where he died on the morning of 21‑8‑
86. The occurrence was reported a day earlier on 20‑8‑86 at 10.15 p.m. by Zafar Hussain to A.S.I. Muhammad Aslam at a Petrol Pump in Qadirpur Raan.
4. The case against the respondents depended upon the ocular testimony as well as the recovery of weapons at their instance. The ocular testimony was provided by Zafar Hussain and Pir Bakhsh. The trial Court as well as the High Court were of the view that the explanation offered by the witnesses for their presence at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time was not convincing. After hearing the learned counsel, we are unable to take a different view. The occurrence took place fairly late in the evening far away from the houses of the two eye‑witnesses. This explanation offered by them that they were returning from Qadirpur Raan at the relevant time is dubious. Apart from that there was a delay of 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R. This delay has not been explained satisfactorily. We, therefore, do not think this a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted to examine propriety of the acquittal of respondents 1 to
3. The petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./Z‑107/S Petition dismissed.