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.
Criminal Petition No.190 of 1983, decided on 29th January, 1984.
(From the judgment, dated 29th March, 1983 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 1979)
‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑ Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑ Murder‑‑Evidence ‑‑Ocular testimony of deceased's brother and mother, mainstay of prosecution‑‑Relationship of such witnesses with deceased in no way detracting from their credibility in absence of any animus to falsely implicate convict petitioner also related to them‑‑Points raised before High Court fully attended to by that Court‑‑No scope for interference for Supreme Court‑‑ Leave to appeal refused.
Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 29th January, 1984.
.‑‑ Samota petitioner alongwith his brother Hota was tried for the murder of Muhammad Siddique deceased and while Hota was acquitted, the petitioner was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default R.I. for one year. His appeal before the High Court having failed, he is seeking leave to appeal.
2. The occurrence took place in the night between the 29th and 30th March, 1978 in the house of the deceased in village Bendial within P.S. Gunjial, District Sargodha. The deceased and the members of his family were sleeping in the house when the witnesses woke up on hearing a fire‑arm shot and saw the deceased lying injured on his cot and the petitioner armed with a rifle and his co‑accused Hota with a Lathi standing near him. The deceased told the witnesses that he had been shot by the petitioner. At the alarm, the assailants ran away. The deceased died shortly thereafter. The incident was reported to the police by Amir P.W., brother of the deceased.
3. The motive for the crime, according to the prosecution, was that Mst. Hayat Bibi, sister of the deceased and Amir P.W., who had been married to the petitioner, had died leaving behind a daughter named Dault Bibi who after the death of her mother had been living with her maternal‑uncles. As she had grown up, her father, the petitioner, wanted her custody which was being refused by the deceased.
4. The petitioner's plea was of denial of the allegations though he admitted that Mst. Daulat Bibi was his daughter born from his marriage with Mst. Hayat Bibi but denied that she was living with the complainant party or that he wanted her custody back. He produced no defence.
5. The mainstay of the prosecution was the ocular testimony of Amir, brother, and Mst. Alam Khatoon, mother of the deceased. Their presence in the house at the time of the occurrence is not open to doubt. Learned counsel, however, urges that they being close relations of the deceased, their evidence should not have been relied upon without sufficient corroboration. Their relationship with the deceased, we are afraid, in no way detracts from their credibility because they had no animus to falsely implicate the petitioner who was also related to them. Other points raised on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court were also fully attended to by that Court and we see no scope for interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, 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