2011 SCMR 1473 (PLP)
NAZEER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GEHNE KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1473 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mian Saqib Nisar and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | NAZEER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GEHNE KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1473 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1473 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mian Saqib Nisar and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1473 (PLP) (NAZEER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GEHNE KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mrs. Fakhar-un-Nisa, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rehnman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th June, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 3-3-2009 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2007, Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2007 and Murder Reference No. 457 of 2007).
S. 302
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Delay in F.I.R.
Chance witnesses--Unexplained delay of seven hours in lodging F.LR. and two eye-witnesses resided at a distance of six/seven acres from place of occurrence
Accused were declared innocent during investigation, it was night occurrence and source of light was allegedly a torch which was never taken into possession
Delay in having postmortem conducted
Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court was set aside by High Court and accused were acquitted of the charge
Delay in having post modem conducted adversely reflected on credibility of prosecution version
Consideration which weighed with High Court were cogent and borne out from record
Complainant failed to refer to any piece of evidence which could persuade Supreme Court to interfere in the findings recorded by High Court
Leave to appeal was refused. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.-G. for the Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
The respondents along with two others were tried in case registered vide F.I.R. No.195 of 2006 dated 24-6-2006, Police Station Saddar Jalapur Pirwala, District Multan for the murder of Ahmad Karim and the learned trial Court in terms of its judgment dated 31-10-2007 while, convicting the respondents acquitted the rest. The learned High Court vide impugned judgment dated 3-3-2009 annulled the trial Court judgment by giving benefit of doubt to the respondents and they were acquitted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave on the ground that the learned High Court has acquitted the respondents for reasons not sustainable in the law; that the two eye-witnesses, who saw the occurrence had no enmity to falsely implicate the respondents; that the so called discrepancies, which the learned High Court considered sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution evidence, did not reflect any discrepancy on material point; that the petitioner/complainant was aggrieved of this honest investigation and that is why a private complaint was filed.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we find that in disbelieving the prosecution evidence, learned High Court was persuaded by the fact that there was an unexplained delay of seven hours in lodging the FIR.; that the two eye-witnesses resided at a distance of six/seven acres from the place of occurrence; that the respondents were declared innocent during investigation; that it was a night occurrence and the source of light was allegedly a torch which was never taken into possession and that there was a delay even in having postmortem conducted, which adversely reflected on the credibility of the prosecution version.
4. Having considered the evidence led with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the afore-referred considerations, which weighed with the learned High Court are cogent and borne out from the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any piece of evidence which could persuade this Court to interfere in the afore-referred findings. That being so, we do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.H./N-10/SC Petition dismissed.