1969 PLP 606 (SCMR)
ANAYAT ULLAH‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 606 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Rashid, C. J., Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Munir, JJ |
| Parties | ANAYAT ULLAH‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), (a) Appeal to Supreme Court |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 606 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), (a) Appeal to Supreme Court as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 606 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Rashid, C. J., Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Munir, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 606 (SCMR) (ANAYAT ULLAH‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Vir Sen Sawhny, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Muhammad Siddiq, Attorney for Appellant.
- Abdul Aziz Khan, Advocate‑General Punjab C: M. Sharif, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 16th October 1951.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated the 13th June 1950 of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 1949). -‑Criminal appeal Appreciation of evidence‑Weight to be attached to prosecution evidence and credibility of witnesses‑Discretion of final Court of facts and not matters for determination of Supreme Court. --S. 32 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164‑Section 164, Cr. P. C. does not override or control S. 32, Evidence Act, 1872. Allah Baksh and others v. The Crown P L D 1953 F C 111 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑Criminal appeal Appreciation of evidence‑Weight to be attached to prosecution evidence and credibility of witnesses‑Discretion of final Court of facts and not matters for determination of Supreme Court. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872)
S. 32 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164‑Section 164, Cr. P. C. does not override or control S. 32, Evidence Act, 1872. Allah Baksh and others v. The Crown P L D 1953 F C 111 ref. Vir Sen Sawhny, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Muhammad Siddiq, Attorney for Appellant. Abdul Aziz Khan, Advocate‑General Punjab C: M. Sharif, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing : 16th October 1951. ARRAM, J.‑This appeal, with our special leave obtained by the appellant Inayat Ullah, is against his conviction and sentence of transportation for life passed by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellant with one other was charged with offences under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 19 (f) of the Arms Act, before the Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore, for the murder of one Karam Illahi and for the possession of an unlicenced spear, but was acquitted. On appeal, however, by the local Government, the Lahore High Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above. It was urged before us by counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P. W. 11 (Siraj Din), P. W. 13 (Sohna) and P. W. 14 (Mst. Bhago) should not have been accepted and relied upon by the High Court, as these witnesses were interested in the deceased, being closely related to him and their evidence was unconvincing and unsatisfactory; but these are matters relating to the weight to be attached to the prosecution evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, which rest solely in the discretion of the final Court of facts, and are not for the determination of this Court. Next, it was urged that the dying declaration (Exh. P. C.), being recorded by a Magistrate (P. W. 2) having only third class powers could not be legally taken into consideration by the Court in view of section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code; but that section does not over‑ride or control section 32 of the Evidence Act. Allah Baksh and others v. The Crown (PLD 1951FC111). Lastly it was suggested that the joint trial of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and 19(f ) of the Arms Act was bad in law, but as the charge under section 19(f ) was to the effect that the alleged murder had been committed with the unlicensed weapon, there is no substance in this contention also. The appeal, therefore, fails on all the grounds urged and it is accordingly dismissed.