1988 PLP 540 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 540 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 540 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 540 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 540 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irshad Ahmad Qureyshi and Haji Muhammad Fazalur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ijaz Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
- M. B. Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M.A. Qadri, Advocate- on-Record for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 17th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19th November, 1983 in Cr. Appeal No.326 of 1980/M.R. No.173 of 1980).
S.302/34--Examination of evidence--Trial Court convicting and sentencing two of accused to death and third accused to life imprisonment but High Court, on appeal, acquitting all accused- Contention that there was no justification on the part of High Court for not believing motive version as well as for arriving at conclusion that there were material discrepancies in ocular evidence and medical testimony--Examination of statements of eye-witnesses as well as medical evidence, however, showing that no case was made out for interference--Petition for leave to appeal (against acquittal) dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 19th November 1983 of Lahore High Court, Lahore. Respondent Shah Muhammad, Iqbal and Abaidur Rehman alongwith Zubair were charged for an offence under section 302/34, P.P. C. on two counts and vide judgment of the trial Court dated 8th December 1979 Iqbal and Abaidur Rehman respondents were sentenced to death on each count plus fine and Shah Muhammad respondent was sentenced to life imprisonment on each of two counts and fine. Zubair however was acquitted. On appeal the High Court acquitted all the three respondents. There are two deceased in this case namely Ghulam Ghaus and Shah Jehan. The occurrence took place at 5.30 p.m. on 18 June 1977 in village Bhagiana Kalan, District Kasur. The F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 8.15 p. m. The respondents were arrested on different dates and from Iqbal gun was recovered which matched with some crime empties picked up from the spot. But this evidence has not been considered reliable. There are two eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Abdul Hameed P.W. brother of the deceased and Muhammad Akram P W, his son. The motive was dispute over land left by one Mst. Bashiri deceased and litigation was pending between the parties. According to the prosecution version the two deceased alongwith the eye-witnesses were called by the accused party by a trick and then the respondents had attacked the two deceased and killed them. Learned counsel argued before us that there was no justification on the part of the High Court in not believing the motive version as well as for arriving at the conclusion that there were material discrepancies in the ocular evidence and the medical testimony. We have gone through the impugned judgment and examined the statement of the eye-witnesses as well as the medical evidence. In our considered opinion no case is made out for interference. In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. S . Q . /A-162/ S Petition dismissed.