Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Respondent: STATE
1987 S C M R 179
1987 S C M R 179
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 344 of 1983, decided on 6th December, 1986.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑9‑1983, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1980(BWP).)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Conviction‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Acquittal of co‑accused‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that there was hardly any distinction between case of acquitted accused and petitioner.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Motive‑‑Corroboration of ocular testimony‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that motive alone could not have been used as corroboration of ocular testimony for maintaining conviction of accused petitioner.‑‑[Motive].
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Zafar, Advocate and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 6th December, 1986.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Muhammad Ashraf petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court in a case under section 302, P.P.C.
2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was tried alongwith 9 others for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz. The trial Court convicted Muhammad Ashraf petitioner and Muhammad Nawaz co‑accused and acquitted the remaining 8 co‑accused. Both the convicts‑accused filed a joint appeal before the High Court. The same was dismissed with regard to Muhammad Ashraf petitioner but accepted qua Muhammad Nawaz co‑accused and he was acquitted.
Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has taken us to the impugned judgment and pointed out that there is hardly any distinction between the case of the acquitted co‑accused and that of the petitioner, as the only reason on which his conviction has been maintained is that he is stated to have had the motive for the offence which has been treated by the learned High Court as corroboration of the testimony of the eye‑witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that motive alone could not have been used as corroboration of the ocular testimony for maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner.
4.The matter needs consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted to him on the above‑noted point.
M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.