Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUISardar M. Siddique Khan,Sardar Muhammad Ghazi
2005 S C M R 1034
2005 S C M R 1034
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Hamid Ali Mirza and, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ
MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Jail Petition No. 197 of 2002, decided on 5th March, 2003
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16‑4‑2002 of Lahore. High Court. Lahore passed in Crl. A. No. 154/J of 2000 and M.R. No.242 of 2000).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑--
‑‑‑‑Ss. 302(b), 365, 392 & 411‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to accused to consider, inter alia whether under the facts and circumstances last seen evidence produced by the prosecution and the recovery of the incriminating articles, could be relied upon and the same were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, especially when the prosecution evidence in respect of the co‑accused was disbelieved on the ground that "contradictory statements" were given in respect of them, and whether the principles of safe dispensation of criminal justice laid down by Supreme Court in various cases were followed.
Sardar M. Siddique Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th March, 2003.
ORDER
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑ Petitioner Muhammad Zulfiqar along with co‑accused namely Ehsan Ullah, Naveed, Bashir Hussain and Muhammad Ijaz, was tried by learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Faisalabad under sections 302/365/392/201/412/34, P.P.C. All above named co‑accused were acquitted vide judgment, dated 5‑6‑2000, but the petitioner was convicted under sections 302(b)/365/ 392/411, P.P.C. and various sentences, including death were awarded to him, which judgment in appeal was maintained by a learned Division Bench, Lahore High Court.
2. No body had seen the petitioner or any of above named co accused committing the murder of Syed Arshad Hussain Shah deceased. Both trial Court and High Court based the conviction on the basis of evidence "Last‑Seen" and recovery of certain articles including taxi/car, watch etc. belonging to the deceased. After about 15 days of occurrence at the alleged pointation of the petitioner, the recovery was affected.
3. Inter alia, leave to appeal is granted to consider:‑‑
(a) Whether, under the facts and circumstances, last‑seen evidence produced by the prosecution and recovery of aforesaid articles could be relied upon and the same were sufficient to establish .the guilt of the petitioner/appellant, especially when the evidence H of the prosecution in respect of above named co‑accused was disbelieved on the ground that `contradictory statements' were given in respect of them?
(b) Whether the principles of safe dispensation of criminal justice laid down by this Court in various cases were followed?
N.H.Q./M‑892/S Leave granted.