Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2002 SCMR 1387

Malik MASHOOD AHMED vs JAFAR and 2 others

Citation2002 SCMR 1387
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No,342-L of 2001 Criminal Appeal No,2049 of 2000
Date2002-02-08
Judge(s)Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Tanvir Ahmed Khan
ResultLeave refused

' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 7-5-2001 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby his appeal against acquittal of the respondents Jaffar and Mst. Shahnaz Bibi in a murder case was dismissed.

2. The respondents were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala for the murder of one Wajid Ali, husband of respondent Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, but were acquitted vide judgment dated 27-11-2000.

3. The occurrence took place on the night between 11/12-2-1999. It was alleged in the F.I.R. That the respondents had developed an illicit liaison and in order to get married had eliminated the deceased.

4. The respondents were acquitted on the grounds; (i) the main eyewitness Zulfiqar Ali (P.W.5) had not supported the prosecution version and had also exonerated the respondents by stating that they were not present in the house of the deceased on the fateful night, (ii) the delay of 12 hours in lodging the F.I.R. Had not been explained, (iii) the solitary statement of the complainant, who is brother of the deceased, was not by itself sufficient to sustain the conviction particularly when it stood established on the record that he is inimically disposed towards the respondent Jaffar and

(iv) the testimony of the complainant had not been corroborated by any independent evidence.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record we find that the respondents were acquitted on correct premises and grounds of their acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court and discussed and upheld by the learned Judges, in the High Court cannot be termed as fanciful or capricious so as to justify interference.

' Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and leave declined.

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