2010 PLP 462 (YLR)
Dr. ABDULLAH HAMID MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 462 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munib Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. ABDULLAH HAMID MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 462 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 462 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Munib Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 462 (YLR) (Dr. ABDULLAH HAMID MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood A. Qureshi for Appellant.
- and Saifullah, A.A.-G. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 540
Application to produce additional evidence
Applicant requested for producing additional evidence in the matter; one was Doctor who had examined applicant and his son, while other was one who had visited the place of incident on information of Rescue 15 and had submitted report regarding factual position of the incident
Submission of the applicant was that to meet the ends of justice the presence of said two witnesses was necessary
On the other hand prosecution strongly opposed the application on the ground that most of the witnesses had appeared before the Trial Court; that the factual position in respect of the injuries of the applicant and his son, was not the subject-matter of the appeal, as they were allegedly beaten by the public at the place of incident and that other person sought to be examined also was not necessary as ocular evidence in the matter was quite sufficient to be considered for the purpose of decision of appeal
Position of prosecution was quite right as no such request was made by the applicant in the Trial Court when the witnesses were produced
Even otherwise the additional evidence was not necessary as Police papers of both mashirnamas etc. had come on record, while fact in respect to information of Rescue 15 had also been spelled out in the facts of the case. Saleem Akhtar, Addl. P.-G., Sindh Arshad Mehmood for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
In this matter yesterday arguments were party heard and the matter was adjourned for today when the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out pendency of C.M.A.No.2752/2008. He submits that this application may be decided first. He submits that by this application two witnesses have been requested to depose towards additional evidence in the matter. These witnesses are Dr. Imran Sarwar, MLO, Civil Hospital, Karachi, who had examined the appellant and his son while the other would be the witness Shaukat Abbas (wrongly mentioned in the application as Shaukat Abbas). This witness has been requested on the ground that he had visited the place of the incident on 7-7-2002 on the information of Rescue 15 and had submitted a report to the TPO, Jamshed Town, Karachi, regarding factual position of the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that to meet the ends of justice the presence of the above mentioned witnesses is necessary. On the other hand, learned APG strongly opposes this application on the ground that most of the witnesses have appeared before the trial Court while death sentence has been awarded to the appellant. He submits that the factual position in respect of the injuries of the appellant and his son is not the subject-matter of the appeal as they were allegedly beaten by the public a the place of incident while the witness Shaukat Abbas is also not necessary as he was SDPO and some of the police official had appeared after information on Rescue 15 and that the ocular evidence in the matter was quite sufficient to be considered for the purpose of decision of appeal. Hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the proposition of the learned APG is quite right as no such request was made in the trial Court when the witnesses were produced. The MLO, requested, is in respect of injuries to the appellant and his son, which is not being disputed as according to learned APG, public gave them beating after double murder. The evidence of SDPO is also not necessary as police papers of both mashirnamas etc. have come on record while fact in respect to information on 15 has also been spelled out in the facts of the case, here is no strong ground to show that whether expected evidence will effect the ocular or circumstantial evidence. In such a situation this application (C.M.A. No.2752 of 2008) is dismissed. H.B.T./A-130/K Appeal dismissed.