Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM VS Respondent: STATE
1979 S C M R 357
1979 S C M R 357
Present: Muhammad Haleem and Aslam Riaz Hussain, JJ .
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑25 of 1978, decided on 2nd April 1979.
(On Appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated the 13th of March 1978 in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1977).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
-----S. 302‑[Murder‑case]‑Appreciation of evidence‑Accused petitioner killing his wife inside his house and occurrence witnessed by deceased's mother and her minor daughter‑Deceased's father and an outsider also rushing, to house on hearing noise and witnessing occurrence‑‑Deceased's mother and daughter being natural witnesses, and their statements as well as statement of deceased's father being corroborated by statement of an independent witness as also by medical evidence, case, held, not fit for reappraisal of evidence specially for no law point having been raised and impugned judgment being well reasoned and elaborate.
Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Senior Advocate and M. T. Memon, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 2nd Aprir1979.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner was tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tharparkar for the murder of his wife Mst. Razia by giving her knife blows and was sentenced, inter alia to imprisonment for life. The occurrence was witnessed by her mother Mst. Hamida Begum P. W. 4 and her daughter Mst. Zarina (P. W. 11) aged 12/13 years, who were present inside the house when the incident took place. , Her father Shafi Muhammad P. W. 5, Photo P. W. 6 and Muhammad Hayat P. W. 7 also rushed to the house on hearing noise and witnessed the occurrence. Muhammad Hayat was not relied on, but the remaining witnesses were believed on by both the Courts below. Mst. Hamida and Mst. Zarina P. Ws. were natural witnesses as were present in their house at the time of the occurrence. No doubt Shafi Muhammad P. W. 5 is father of the deceased but his testimony as well as that of the two women named above is corroborated by the statement of Photo P. W. 6, who is not related to the deceased and is an independent witness. The ocular evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence.
No law point has been raised and in view of the well reasoned an elaborate judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench of the High Court we do not consider it to be a fit case for reappraisal of evidence. The petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.