1975 PLP 339 (SCMR)
QAIMUDDIN-Petitioner Versus PAHALWAN AND 0Taajts-Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 339 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- S. 302/149 -Murder case-Prosecution story not supported by ocular evidence-Judicial confessions completely self-exculpatory-No fire-arm injury found on body of deceased and lathis allegedly used not Stained with blood-Extra-judicial confessions not proved by person before whom such confessions allegedly made Counsel for State not supporting conviction---No ground, held, made out for interference. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QAIMUDDIN-Petitioner Versus PAHALWAN AND 0Taajts-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 339 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 339 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- S. 302/149 -Murder case-Prosecution story not supported by ocular evidence-Judicial confessions completely self-exculpatory-No fire-arm injury found on body of deceased and lathis allegedly used not Stained with blood-Extra-judicial confessions not proved by person before whom such confessions allegedly made Counsel for State not supporting conviction---No ground, held, made out for interference. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 339 (SCMR) (QAIMUDDIN-Petitioner Versus PAHALWAN AND 0Taajts-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Azizullah Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Usman Ghent, Assistant Advocate- General Sind, instructed by M. I. Memon, Advocate-on-record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. A. Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
- Date of hearing : 4th March 1975.
- Azizullah Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Usman Ghent, Assistant Advocate‑ General Sind, instructed by M. I. Memon, Advocate‑on-record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. A. Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchlstan, Karachi, dated 17-5.1974 in Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1973). -- S. 302/149 -[Murder case]-Prosecution story not supported by ocular evidence-Judicial confessions completely self-exculpatory-No fire-arm injury found on body of deceased and lathis allegedly used not Stained with blood-Extra-judicial confessions not proved by person before whom such confessions allegedly made Counsel for State not supporting conviction
No ground, held, made out for interference.
Judgment & Decree
Azizullah Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Usman Ghent, Assistant Advocate‑ General Sind, instructed by M. I. Memon, Advocate‑on-record for Petitioner. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. A. Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to
5. Date of hearing : 4th March 1975. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J..‑Qaimuddin, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal from the order passed by a Division Beach of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, on 17th May 1974, acquitting, on appeal, Pehalwan, Luqman, Ali, Sanwan and Dur Muhammad, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 of the charge of murdering their co‑villager, Ismail. There was no ocular evidence in the case but the prosecution relied on confession by the respondents, retracted judicial concession by three of them and recovery of a revolver and 3 lathis from the respondents. The judicial confessions were completely self‑exculpatory while the recoveries were of no value. The deceased had suffered no fire‑arm injury while the lathis were not found to be stained with blood. Similarly the extra‑judicial confessions were liable to be rejected as they were made to one Usman who was not examined during the trial. It is mentioned in the High Court judgment that neither the Public Prosecutor in the trial Court nor the learned counsel who appeared for the state before the Division Bench supported the conviction. A counter‑case was registered earlier at the instance of Luqman, respondent, under section, 333 and 457, P. P. C. The deceased was allegedly engaged in committing theft in the house of Luqman when he was given beating which resulted in his death. The dead body of Ismail was found near the house of Luqman ace there was a breach in the wall through which he had made entry. The accused in the counter‑case were acquitted and the trial Judge used this circumstances against the respondents which undoubtedly was an erroneous approach. In the facts stated above, there is no ground for granting leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.