1970 PLP 807 (SCMR)
BASHIRUDDIN HOSSAIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 PLP 807 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BASHIRUDDIN HOSSAIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 807 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 807 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 807 (SCMR) (BASHIRUDDIN HOSSAIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aminul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 22nd June 1970.
- Aminul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 6th November 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 1969). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)-Complainant injured during robbery committed at his house, recognising one accused and promptly naming him to his wife and a few neighbors-Complainant's wife and neighbours corroborating such part of complainant's statement-Prosecution case free from embellishments or false exaggerations-Nothing, in circumstances, held, justifies interference by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑Petitioner Bashiruddin seeks special leave to appeal against his conviction under section 395, P. P. C. for which he has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprison ment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year, by the Sessions Judge, Noakhali, which was affirmed by the High Court by dismissing the petitioner's appeal in limine. P. W. Priyanath Das Gupta is the sole eye‑witness of this society which was committed in his house on the night following the 19th of June 1968. He was injured by his assailants. He was able to identify the petitioner alone, as he knew him before, and named him promptly to his wife, P. W. 3 Sushangini Das Gupta, and a few Muslim neighbours who reached the spot soon after the occurrence, and who corroborated his version. His wife did not claim there cognition of the accused and merely stated that she got the names of the dacoits from her husband. The pro secution case seems to us to be free from any embellishments or false exaggerations. The learned counsel for the petitioner complained against the summary dismissal of the appeal by the High Court without proper appraisement of evidence. We permitted the learned counsel to point out to us any infirmity in the prosecution case arising from the evidence, which, according to him, has escaped the notice of the High Court. Nothing at all was brought out by him to justify interference on our part. The petition‑is dismissed.