2011 SCMR 1080 (PLP)
SUDHEER AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1080 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SUDHEER AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1080 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1080 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1080 (PLP) (SUDHEER AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th April, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 27-10-2010 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2008 and Murder Reference No. 5 of 2008).
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Contentions of the counsel for accused were that the F.LR. in the case had been lodged with a noticeable delay and the same had been recorded at the spot whereat the local police had reached on its own after receiving information about the incident from an undisclosed source; that the eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution were related, inimical and chance witnesses who could not be relied upon without receiving independent corroboration; that the motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established and the medical evidence produced by the prosecution was in conflict with the ocular account; that the reasons recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment did not depict serious appraisal of the evidence and such reasons were not only conjectural but they were also based mostly upon surmises
Supreme Court allowed the petition for leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence available on the record. Muhammad Irfan Malik, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
It has inter alia been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a noticeable delay and the same had been recorded at the spot whereat the local police had reached on its own after receiving information about the incident from an undisclosed source; the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were related, inimical and chance witnesses who could not be relied upon without receiving independent corroboration; the motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established and the medical evidence produced by the prosecution was in conflict with the ocular account. It has also been argued that the reasons recorded by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in the impugned judgment do not depict serious appraisal of the evidence and such reasons are not only conjectural but they are also based mostly upon surmises. As against that the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as their learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State this petition is allowed and leave to appeal is granted to reappraise the evidence available on the record of this case. M.A.K./S-18/SC Leave granted.