Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ILYAS VS Respondent: IMRANHonorable Justice KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAYMunir Ahmad Bhatti,Nemo
2006 S C M R 853
2006 S C M R 853
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, JJ
MUHAMMAD ILYAS----Petitioner
Versus
IMRAN and others----Respondents
Criminal Petitions Nos.453-L and 454-L of 2003 and Jail Petition No.96 of 2004, decided on 22nd November, 2005.
(On appeal from the order, dated 7-5-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Appeal No.581 of 1999, Murder Reference No.207 of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.341 of 2002).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 302(b)/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to accused to consider whether the evidence of last-seen, extra-judicial confession allegedly made by co-accused, abscondence of accused after the occurrence and the incriminating recoveries, even when put together, were sufficient for recording/ maintaining the conviction against the accused.
Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.Ps. Nos.453 and 454-L of 2005).
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2005.
ORDER
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- The evidence offered by the prosecution to establish the guilt of Imran and Amjad convicts was, Zulfiqar deceased having been last-seen in the company of the said two convicts and the extra judicial confession allegedly, made by Amjad convict only. Evidence was also led at the trial regarding the said convicts having disappeared and having concealed themselves after the occurrence in question. It was also alleged that the two crime-empties had been allegedly found to have been fired from the fire-arm weapons allegedly recovered at the instance of the said two convicts. A .44 licensed rifle of the deceased which the said deceased was carrying with him when he was allegedly taken away by the said two convicts, had also been allegedly recovered from Imran convict. The question whether such pieces of evidence even when put together, could be considered sufficient for recording/maintaining conviction against Imran convict, A requires consideration.
2. For the said purpose, Jail Petition No.96 of 2004 filed by Imran convict is allowed and leave is granted.
3. Criminal Petitions Nos.453-L of 2003 and 454-L of 2003 filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the punishments, awarded to the said Imran convict and his co-convict, namely, Amjad (who does not appear to have filed any petition before this Court questioning his conviction) shall be heard along with the said appeal arising out of the said jail petition.
N.H.Q./M-29/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.