1989 SCMR 409

KHAN BAHADUR Versus STATE

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1989 SCMR 409

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Jail Petition No. 28‑R of 1988

Date1988-10-02

Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash

Authored byAli Hussain Qazilbash

ResultPetition dismissed

ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑ ‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 23‑2‑1988, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. has been maintained and has been allowed the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. 2.

2. The petition is reported to be barred by 22 days. Since the petitioner is confined in jail, the delay is condoned.

3. I have gone through the evidence and the judgments of the Courts below. Though the occurrence in this case had taken place at about midnight but there is hardly a possibility of mistaken identity of the petitioner in that he is residing ink the same locality, close to the house of the complainant and before inflicting the fatal injuries to the deceased had exchanged hot words with him and the complainant. The prosecution has relied upon the statements of Muhammad Sadiq (P.W. 4) and Zulfiqar (P.W. 5). The former is the brother of the deceased and has stamp of injuries on his person which are alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioner, therefore, his presence at the spot cannot be questioned. The latter resides adjacent to the house of the deceased and his reaching the spot at the crucial time cannot be ruled out. Both the eye‑witnesses have charged the petitioner for inflicting knife injuries to the deceased. Their version is fully corroborated by the medico‑legal report inasmuch as the deceased had as many as two tab and one cut wound injuries on his body. Except a dispute between the parties over a passage, no other acute dispute existed between the parties for implicating the petitioner falsely in the commission of the crime. The prosecution has also been able to establish the motive and the defence put forward by the petitioner, think is not convincing.

4. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of the petitioners well founded and the petition is liable to dismissal.

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑I agree.

M.A.K./K‑80,/S Petition dismissed.