Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 1005 2004 SLD 1005 2004 SCMR 763
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.659-L of 2002, decision dated: 10-12-2002.(On appeal from the judgment dated 9-7-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2001)
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY AND FALAK SHER, JJ
N. A. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent

MUHAMMAD JAVED-

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S.302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Complainant who had narrated the occurrence in material particulars was fully corroborated by eye-witnesses including a totally independent person who had got no animus whatsoever for false implication of accused in an offence entailing capital punishment---Ocular account was also in line with medical evidence---Impugned was supported by cogent reasons and did not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity---Leave to appeal was declined to accused in circumstances. ORDER TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 9-7-2002 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2001 filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, through his judgment dated 20-12-2000 was dismissed. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that Mst. Sarwar Bibi got recorded F.I.R. No.340 of 1995 on 6-7-1995 at Police Station, Nawan Kot, Lahore against the petitioner and four others under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. for the murder of his son Muzaffar Ahmad. The investigation of the case, according to her, was conducted in a mala fide manner as the investigating agency was implicating one Kaleem Ullah Niazi in the above murder and were not involving the present petitioner and his co-accused therein. Faced with this situation, she filed a private complaint seeking trial of the afore-mentioned accused persons. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined 10 witnesses: The learned trial Judge also secured the evidence of 7 court-witnesses. After thrashing the entire evidence, he acquitted the co--accused of the petitioner by extending them the benefit of doubt and convicted the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., failing which he was ordered to suffer further six months S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also given to the…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492