| Case ID |
2d39fba5-e4dd-41d7-a919-ea2c648d5637 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No.1490 and Criminal Revision No.7 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 07, 2008 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court, presided over by Justice Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, meticulously reviewed Criminal Appeal No.1490 and Criminal Revision No.747 of 2005. The appellant, Abdul Sattar, was initially convicted under Section 302(b) of the Penal Code, receiving a life sentence and a compensation order. However, upon thorough examination of the evidence, including conflicting medical testimonies and the credibility of ocular witnesses, the court identified substantial grounds to overturn the previous judgment. Key factors influencing the decision included the discrediting of the motive, inconsistencies in eye-witness accounts, and the insufficiency of corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. Additionally, the court scrutinized the significance of the accused's abscondence, determining that it did not irrefutably prove guilt. As a result, the appeal was upheld, leading to the acquittal of Abdul Sattar. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby setting aside the conviction and ordering the immediate release of the appellant. Furthermore, the court dismissed Criminal Revision No.747 of 2005 filed by the complainant for enhancement, reaffirming the principles of justice and the necessity of credible evidence in criminal proceedings. |
| Summary |
In the significant case of Criminal Appeal No.1490 and Criminal Revision No.747 of 2005, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on March 7, 2008, the appellant Abdul Sattar faced conviction under Section 302(b) of the Penal Code, receiving a life imprisonment sentence and a substantial compensation order. The case revolved around the murder of Muhammad Hanif, where the prosecution relied heavily on ocular testimonies and the accused's abscondence as key evidence. However, the court's detailed analysis revealed critical inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the eyewitness accounts. The medical reports indicated a prolonged duration between the injuries and the time of death, which contradicted the immediate death narrative suggested by the eye-witnesses. Additionally, the credibility of the witnesses came under scrutiny due to their close relationship with the deceased, raising concerns about potential bias. The absence of a clear motive and the lack of corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution's case. The defense effectively highlighted these discrepancies, emphasizing the principle that abscondence alone does not constitute proof of guilt. The court's decision to acquit Abdul Sattar underscored the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on irrefutable and credible evidence, aligning with fundamental legal standards. This ruling not only highlights the importance of scrutinizing evidence but also reinforces the necessity of upholding the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The dismissal of the enhancement revision filed by the complainant further cemented the court's stance on the insufficiency of the prosecution's case. This case serves as a pivotal reference in criminal jurisprudence, emphasizing meticulous evidence evaluation and the protection of individual rights within the legal framework of Pakistan. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
THE STATE,
ABDUL SATTAR
|
| Judges |
Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. Khalid Ranjha,
Rana Aish Bahadar,
Syed Muhammad Imran Sherazi, D.P.-G.,
Syed Ijaz Qutab
|
| Petitioners |
ABDUL SATTAR
|
| Respondents |
another,
THE STATE
|
| Citations |
2008 SLD 6937,
2008 PCRLJ 859
|
| Other Citations |
1986 PCr.LJ 1723,
PLD 1976 SC 695,
1971 SCMR 239,
Rasool Muhammad v. Asal Muhammad and 3 others 1995 SCMR 1373,
PLD 1964 SC 26,
Muhammad Ahmad and another v. The State and others 1997 SCMR 89,
1983 PCr.LJ 429,
Mehr Ali and others v. The State 1968 SCMR 161,
Khan and another v. The State 1978 PCr.LJ 24,
1973 PCr.LJ 675,
Muhammad Khan v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1778,
Haroon Rasheed v. The State and another 2005 SCMR 1568,
2000 SCMR 1805,
PLD 2001 SC 458,
PLD 1972 Pesh. 92,
2005 SCMR 427,
2004 PCr.LJ 1697,
PLD 2004 SC 44,
2006 SCMR 1744,
1998 SCMR 1823
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
|
| Sections |
302(b)
|