1994 PLP 392 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 392 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Ajmal Mian and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 392 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 392 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Ajmal Mian and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 392 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K h. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 105 of 1992).
- Muhammad Nasrullah Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool A. Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 348‑L of 1992).
- Date of hearing: 27th June, 1993.
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 105 of 1992).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 28‑6‑1992 passed in Cr. A. No. 582 of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider inter alia whether in view of conflict in ocular and medical evidence (particularly regarding firing distance shown in the site plan as 32 feet) implicit reliance could be placed on the eye‑witnesses merely for the reason that there was no background of enmity between the parties. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 105 of 1992).
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider inter alia whether in view of conflict in ocular and medical evidence (particularly regarding firing distance shown in the site plan as 32 feet) implicit reliance could be placed on the eye‑witnesses merely for the reason that there was no background of enmity between the parties. K h. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 105 of 1992). Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 105 of 1992). Muhammad Nasrullah Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool A. Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 348‑L of 1992). Date of hearing: 27th June, 1993. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal is granted to consider inter alia whether in view of conflict in ocular and medical evidence (particularly regarding firing distance shown in the site plan as 32 feet) implicit reliance could be placed on the eye‑witnesses merely for the reason that there was no background of enmity between the parties.
2. Since leave to appeal has been granted to the convicts, we also grant leave in Criminal Petition No. 105 of 1992 against Muhammad Akram respondent. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Gujrat, be issued against him. N.H.Q.M‑1861/S Leave granted.