1994 PLP 1749 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1749 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1749 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1749 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1749 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 27th March, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑4‑1993 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Appeal No. 549 of 1990 and Crl. Appeal No. 546 of 1990). ‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contentions were that the first medical examination report of the deceased had not been produced, that ocular evidence was contradicted by medical evidence and suffered from material discrepancies and that said infirmities were not taken notice of by the Courts below‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contentions. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAF10 TARAR, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Arshad and Shahbaz petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 4‑4‑1993 whereby their appeals against their convictions under section 302/34, P.P.C. carrying death sentence with a fine of Rs.20,000 for the former and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.15,000 for the latter, were dismissed.
2. The petitioners were tried on the allegation that on 18‑5‑1988 at 10‑30 a.m. while armed with a dagger and hatchet they caused injuries to Abdur Rashid deceased in furtherance of their common intention as a result of which he died on the following day i.e. 19‑5‑1988.
3. The prosecution version as per F.I.R. which was lodged by the deceased was that on 18‑5‑1988 at about 10‑30 a.m. Abdur Rashid deceased and his brother Abdul Aziz were present at Adda Mananwala when Arshad armed with a Khanjar and his relative Shahbaz armed with hatchet came there raising Lalkaras and simultaneously caused injuries with their weapons on various parts of his body including left and right buttocks, left fore‑arm, left hand and left shoulder.
4. At the trial Jan Muhammad and Abdul Aziz P.Ws. supported the version contained in the F.I.R.
5. The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge, denied the prosecution allegation against them and maintained that ‑ they were falsely implicated due to suspicion.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on the record in its true perspective. He maintained that the injured was firstly examined at a local dispensary and when received in the Emergency Ward he had stitched wounds but the report of his first medical examination was not produced. He further submits that the ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence and suffers from material discrepancies. He pointed out that according to Abdul Aziz P.W., Shahbaz accused was apprehended by the police at the spot while Arshad had succeeded in running away but the Investigating Officer had' stated that he arrested both the accused on 24‑5‑1988 i.e. six days after the occurrence, but this material discrepancy and other inherent infirmities were not taken notice of. The submissions made by the learned counsel require examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. N.H.Q/M‑2041/S Leave granted.