1995 PLP 1174 (SCMR)
ABDUL WAHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1174 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Actg CJ. and Manaoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1174 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1174 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Actg CJ. and Manaoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1174 (SCMR) (ABDUL WAHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 30th April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7‑12‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Cr. Revn. No. 304 of 1986 in Cr. Revn. No. 461 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Appeal against retrial of accused‑‑‑High Court had rightly taken the view that the reasons given by Trial Court for rejecting the testimony of the natural witnesses were not sustainable‑‑‑Order of High Court directing retrial of accused, therefore, did not call for any interference by Supreme Court and leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Appeal against retrial of accused‑‑‑High Court had rightly taken the view that the reasons given by Trial Court for rejecting the testimony of the natural witnesses were not sustainable‑‑‑Order of High Court directing retrial of accused, therefore, did not call for any interference by Supreme Court and leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1994. SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG, CJ.‑‑‑On 2‑9‑1984, Muhammad Khalas deceased and his mother Mst. Waziran were sleeping in the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Yameen (P.W.9) in village Harnoli, Tehsil Mianwali. According to the prosecution, it 4‑15 a.m., the petitioner alongwith his brother Khan Muhammad entered the courtyard. Both were carrying shotguns. They went up to the of Muhammad Khalas when the petitioner fired at him. Muhammad Khalas died at the spot. The petitioner and his brother ran away from the place of the occurrence.
2. The petitioner and his brother were tried on a charge under, section 302, Pakistan Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and denied that they were responsible for causing death of the deceased.
3. The main evidence against the petitioner was provided by Mst. Waziran and Muhammad Yameen. The trial Court rejected their testimony and acquitted the accused. Muhammad Yamin P.W. 9 filed a revision petition in the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the revision petition in so far as the petitioner was concerned and ordered his retrial. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the testimony of the natural witnesses were unsustainable. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. Leave is refused. N.H.Q./A.1253/S Leave refused.