Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HAQ And Another VS Respondent: The STATE
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Zaffar Hussain Mirza, S. A. Nusrat Title: MUHAMMAD HAQ And Another vs The STATE Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1981 Jail Petition No. 49-R of 1984 Date of Judgment:1985-10-25 Reported As: 1986 SCMR 74 Result: Leave granted
Judgment OPINION S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This Jail Petition has been filed by two real brothers Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Haq against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dismissing their appeal against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jehlum by order, dated 5-9-1981. 2. I have gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court as well as the learned High Court. 3. In the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Nazir Ahmed, as many as 9 persons were charged with the commission of the offence. The trial Court convicted the two petitioners and one Muhammad Qasim under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and other six were acquitted. Muhammad Qasim was acquitted by the High Court. 4. The eye-witness account was furnished by Nazir Ahmad' complainant, brother of the deceased and another close relation Abdul Hakim son of real sister of the deceased. The evidence regarding recovery of weapons allegedly used by the accused was ruled out of consideration. The motive as well as the evidence of the two eye-witnesses was believed. The defence pointed out that some improvements were made at the trial by the witnesses and their testimony was in conflict with the medical report. This contention was, however, overruled. In view of the fact that initially 9 persons were charged with the commission of the offence out of whom 7 have been acquitted, recoveries were disbelieved and the two eye-witnesses are close relations of the deceased, re-appraisal of evidence seems justified. I, would, therefore, grant leave. As the petition is from jail the limitation of 34 days is liable to be condoned. Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J.--I agree that this is a fit case for leave. ORDER OF THE COURT