2001 PLP 1986 (SCMR)
LEHRASAB‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ESTATE‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1986 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdur Rehman Khan, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | LEHRASAB‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ESTATE‑‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1986 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1986 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdur Rehman Khan, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1986 (SCMR) (LEHRASAB‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ESTATE‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th November, 2000.
- Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contentions were that the conviction of accused was based only on the recovery of 222 rifle and the matching of the empties picked up from the spot--‑Said recovery, however, was not believed by the Trial Court and the finding of the High Court was that the empty had been fired from the gun recovered from co‑accused‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court. to the accused to consider the said contentions. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contentions were that the conviction of accused was based only on the recovery of 222 rifle and the matching of the empties picked up from the spot--‑Said recovery, however, was not believed by the Trial Court and the finding of the High Court was that the empty had been fired from the gun recovered from co‑accused‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court. to the accused to consider the said contentions. S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 8th November, 2000. The petitioner was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and was awarded death sentence by the trial Court. In appeal the conviction was maintained but the death sentence was reduced into life imprisonment. This petition has, therefore, been moved to assail the correctness of the impugned judgments. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the only evidence on which conviction has been based is that of recovery of 222 rifle and the matching of the empties picked up from the spot. However, he pointed out that this recovery was not believed by the trial Court and moreover the finding of the High Court is that the empty was fired from the gun recovered from co‑accused Muhammad Nawaz. We grant leave to appeal to consider the above contentions. N. H. Q./L‑16/S Leave granted.