1969 PLP 825 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN‑Petitioner Versus HAIDER ZAMAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 825 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAMAN‑Petitioner Versus HAIDER ZAMAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 825 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 825 (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: 1969 PLP 825 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZAMAN‑Petitioner Versus HAIDER ZAMAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mujaddad Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Naziruddin, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 24th May 1963.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 4th April 1963, in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 1962).
S
302‑Accused acquitted by High Court‑Certain features and circumstances found to have escaped notice of High Court‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court against order of acquittal.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Mujaddad Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Naziruddin, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 24th May 1963. S. A. RAHMAN, A. C. J.‑The respondent Haider Zaman was tried for the murder of his own wife, convicted and sentenced by the trial Judge to death. On appeal and reference the High Court of West Pakistan set aside his conviction and sentence and acquitted him. This is a petition by Muhammad Zaman complainant in the case for special leave to appeal from the acquittal order passed by the High Court. The woman was undoubtedly murdered in the house of the respondent in a room which was found locked and which was broken open by the villagers who had collected there. The respondent, according to the evidence of some witnesses, had been seen locking the door and running away with a hatchet in his hand: There was also evidence led to show that he later surrendered the key of the lock during the investigation. Some witnesses were produced who deposed that they had actually seen the respondent assaulting the deceased with a hatchet. The whole of this evidence was disbelieved by the High Court along with the evidence of motive. Mr. Ghulam Mujaddad Mirza has contended before us that the circumstances of the case did not receive full attention in the High Court and this caused a wrong approach to be made in the case. The main stand of the learned counsel appearing against the respondent was that the murder had been committed in his own house and the dead body was recovered from a locked kotha of which he had the key. He .also pointed out that the alleged eye‑witnesses were completely disinterested in the case and that there was satisfactory evidence led to show that the respondent had a motive for committing the offence. There were also recoveries of a blood‑stained shirt from the accused and a blood‑stained hatchet at the instance of the accused. An extra judicial confession was also proved in the case. There are certain features and circumstances of the case which appear to have escaped notice in the High Court and the case therefore needs re‑examination by this Court. We grant leave to appeal. Non‑bailable warrant will issue against the respondent Haider Zaman returnable to the D. M. Leave granted.