Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Jail Petition No. 39‑R of 1982, decided on 20th June, 1984.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑4‑1982, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 1980 and Murder Reference No. 99 of 1980).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Murder‑Pro secution case supported by independent witnesses not related to deceased and eye‑witness not having any enmity with convict petitioner‑Guilt squarely brought home to convict‑petitioner and High Court found justified in maintaining his conviction and confirming death sentence‑Leave to appeal refused.
Inamul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 20th June, 1984.
.‑Muhammad Latif petitioner has filed this petition for leave to appeal through Jail against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court in a murder case vide the impugned judgment dated 6‑4‑1982.
2. The occurrence, in which Muhammad Latif petitioner is stated to have murdered Manzoor Ahmad took place at 2‑30 p.m. on 18‑3‑1978 outside Kot Fatteh Din, Kasur City. The F. I. R. was lodged by Amanat Ali (P. W. 7) at 4‑30 p.m. on the same day and was recorded by Muhammad Yaqoob, S. I. (P. W. 1).
3. The facts, briefly, are that Muhammad Latif petitioner used to come to the lathe shop, where the deceased worked, to one Muhammad Iqbal. On the day of occurrence the petitioner came and started cutting jokes with the deceased. He then caressed and kissed deceased on his cheek. The deceased felt angry and hit the accused with a sarya on his head. The petitioner left the shop threatening the deceased to take the revenge. He came at the shop after an hour, armed with a chhurri. He gave chhurri blows to the deceased, who was removed to the Mayo Hospital in injured condition where he succumbed to his injuries.
The accused‑petitioner was arrested and a blood‑stained chhurri was recovered from him. It was found to be stained with human blood.
4. At the trial 3 eye‑witnesses, namely, Amanat Ali (P. W. 7), Muhammad Abbas (P. W. 8) and Rehmat (P. W. 9) appeared in support of the prosecution case which was also supported, inter alia, by the recovery of the blood‑stained chhurri.
As already mentioned the Courts below believed the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused to death under section 302 P. P. C. On appeal the High Court maintained his conviction and confirmed the sentence of death.
Hence the present petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the relevant portion of the evidence.
We notice that the prosecution case is supported by independent witnesses, as Amanat Ali (P. W. 7) and Rehmat (P. W. y) are not related to the deceased, nor is any one of the 3 eye‑witnesses alleged to have had any enmity with the accused‑petitioner. Their testimony is, therefore, absolutely reliable and could be relied upon for convicting of the accused petitioner even without corroboration. But as already stated corrobora tion by way of recovery of the blood‑stained chhurri from the petitioner, is available in this case. We are, therefore, of the view that guilt has been squarely brought home to the petitioner and the learned High Court was justified in maintaining his conviction and confirming the death sentence.
The petition is consequently dismissed.
S, Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer