Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2005 SCMR 1645

MUHAMMAD AHMED and others vs THE STATE

Citation2005 SCMR 1645
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No,380-L of 2003
Date2003-10-31
Judge(s)Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Sh. Riaz Ahmad
ResultLeave refused

ORDER

' SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J.--- This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order dated 12-5-2003 whereby the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the criminal revision preferred on behalf of the petitioners maintaining their conviction and sentences on charges under sections 356, 452 and 354, Pakistan Penal Code with direction that all sentences would run concurrently and the petitioners would also be entitled to the benefit under section 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The precise allegation against the petitioners spelling out from case F.I.R. No,328, dated 25-12- 2001 registered with Police Station Minchan Abad on charges under sections 324/354/337-F(ii)/336, Pakistan Penal Code is that on the fateful day the petitioners had tried to apprehend Mst. Asia Bibi in the fields on the suspicion that she was carrying on with Muhammad Afzal. Mst. Asia Bibi in order to save her life ran towards her house. Muhammad Ahmed armed with Chhuri along with Muhammad Fayyaz and Ashiq Ali followed her and ultimately Ashiq Ali caught hold both the arms of Mst. Asia while Muhammad Ahmed chopped off her nose with the knife and subsequently Ashiq Ali shaved her head with Chhuri. On hearing the hue and cry, the witnesses were attracted to the spot and had also tried to apprehend the culprits, but they managed to escape from the spot. At the trial, the witnesses and the victim of the attack had supported the prosecution case on all material particulars, and therefore, no exception can be taken to the dismissal of their revision.

3. The learned counsel mainly argued that since the recovery of Chhuri was not proved, therefore, the conviction in this case was not sustainable. We are afraid that the contention is devoid of force and is hereby repelled inasmuch as recovery of weapon of offence is only the corroborative piece of evidence to strengthen the ocular account. We have noticed that in this case overwhelming ocular account exists to connect the petitioners with the commission of crime and in our view the prosecution case stands established against the petitioners beyond an iota of doubt, therefore, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch