1990 SCMR 1985 (PLP)
IJAZ AHMED ETC. — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — RESPONDENT
| Citation | 1990 SCMR 1985 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Bench |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zila CJ, Pir Muhammad Karm Shah and Molana Muhammad Tuki Usmani, JJ and Others, |
| Parties | IJAZ AHMED ETC. — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — RESPONDENT |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 SCMR 1985 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 SCMR 1985 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zila CJ, Pir Muhammad Karm Shah and Molana Muhammad Tuki Usmani, JJ and Others,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 SCMR 1985 (PLP) (IJAZ AHMED ETC. — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — RESPONDENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Salah-u-Din, Advocate on record (Absent)---for Petitioner
- Nemo For Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 302/34, 377 & 392‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 20‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑Application of evidence‑Delay in lodging F.
1. R. was not sufficient to discard strong prosecution evidence Last seen evidence did not suffer from any infirmity‑Magistrate in his statement bad explained that he bad attested the documents by signing them and the same were thus, not required to be sealed Prosecution, held, had proved its case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Khalid Ranjha, Acvocate Supreme Court and Hearing Date- 19th February 1990.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 302/34, 377 & 392‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 20‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑Application of evidence‑Delay in lodging F.
1. R. was not sufficient to discard strong prosecution evidence Last seen evidence did not suffer from any infirmity‑Magistrate in his statement bad explained that he bad attested the documents by signing them and the same were thus, not required to be sealed Prosecution, held, had proved its case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Khalid Ranjha, Acvocate Supreme Court and Salah-u-Din, Advocate on record (Absent)
for Petitioner Nemo For Respondent Hearing Date- 19th February 1990. It was a dead body of a young man about 21 years old. The dead body was covered with sand. Hands were clenched. Froth was coming from the mouth and nostrils. Bleedings from ears. Exco riation of the skin from the whole body. No external sign of violence was found , on the body. Trachea congested and contained muddy water. Lungs congested. Heart right side was full of blood. Left side empty. Stomach contained water. Liver congested. Kidney congested. After the careful examination of the dead body. I was of the opinion that death had occurred due to drowning. However, the anal swabs were taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was 4 to 5 minutes and time between death and post‑mortem, 20 to 23 days. Ex. PJ is correct carbon copy of post‑mortem report which is in my hand and bears my signatures. After post‑mortem examination, police papers and post‑mortem report were handed over to the police. I performed post‑mortem examination on 11‑1‑1987 at 9 A. M."