Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ANWAR VS Respondent: STATE
1998 S C M R 277
1998 S C M R 277
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Fazal Karim and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ ,..
ANWAR and another---Petitioners
Versus
STATE---Respondent
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.98-L of 1996, decided on 3rd April, 1996.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-12-1995 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Appeal No.733 of 1992).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 302/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Contention was that corroborative evidence used against accused was that empties taken into possession from place of occurrence were found by Fire-Arm Expert to have been fired from accused's gun; that memo. of recovery of empties showed that empties were taken into possession by Investigating Officer from place of occurrence, but that fact was contradicted by complainant who stated that empties had been produced before Investigating Officer by either of the two other persons named by him in his statement; that complainant. had also admitted that after accused had produced guns, the Thanedar had fired from those guns to check if same were in working order; and that such admissions had made recovery of empties highly doubtful arid Fire-Arm Expert's Report could not serve as corroboration---Leave to appeal was granted, inter alia, to consider the contentions and to examine whether it was in the interest of safe administration of justice to convict accused.
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
ORDER
FAZAL KARIM, J.---The petitioners Anwar and Khizar Hayat, alongwith four others named Munir Ahmad, Shahbaz alias Baza, Sikander and Muhammad Hayat, were tried for the murder of Mukhtar Ahmed, which took place at about 10-00 a.m. on 3-3-1991. The learned trial Judge convicted the petitioners under section 302 read with 34 of the P.P.C., and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine each. The remaining four accused persons, of whom three had, according to the prosecution, actively participated in the commission of the crime and one had abetted the offence, were acquitted. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the High Court's impugned judgment dated 20-12-1995 and so was the complainant's revision petition, praying that the petitioners be sentenced to death.
2. The prosecution case was that the complainant alongwith Muhammad Hayat, Muhammad Mumtaz and Lala was working in their field and Mukhtar Ahmad deceased, a brother of the complainant, was ploughing another field at a distance of six Kanals from them when the accused persons, Baza. Sikandar. Anwar, Khizar Hayat armed with guns and Munir Ahmed empty-handed appeared. Munir Ahmad caught hold of Mukhtar Ahmad deceased. He was forcibly lifted to a distance of five Karams where Anwar petitioner fired hitting him in his chest, Baza, Sikander, Anwar and Khizar Hayat also fired shots also hitting Mukhtar Ahmad.
3. The first information report was purportedly recorded at 12-30 p.m. on 3-3-1991 Learned counsel for the petitioners referred us to the findings of the learned trial Court to point out that in the opinion of the learned trial Judge, the F.I.R. had not been lodged at 12-30 P.M. ,as shown therein; that the deceased man had many enemies; that the accused persons Munir Ahmad, Sikander, Baza and Khizar Hayat were in the vire of the learned trial Judge "falsely implicated" He argued that in view of these findings, it was not safe to convict the petitioners without corroboration. Against the petitioners what was used as corroborative evidence was the fact that the empties taken into possession from the place; of occurrence were found by the Fire-arm Expert to have been fired from the petitioner's guns. In this behalf learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to the memo of recovery which showed that the empties were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the spot of occurrence but this, fact was contradicted by Manzoor complainant (P.W.9), who said that the empties had been produced before the Investigating Officer either by Fateh Muhammad or Sadra. He admitted also that after the accused had produced the guns, the Thanedar had fired from those guns to check if the same were in working order". These admissions, so argued the learned counsel, made the recovery of the empties highly doubtful and, therefore, the expert's report could not serve as corroboration.
4. Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to consider these contentions and to examine whether it is in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice to convict the petitioners.
H.B.T./A-23/S Leave granted.