1969 PLP 64 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 64 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Witness |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 64 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Witness as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 64 (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 64 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dates of hearing : 9th and 10th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 18th June 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 1967). --‑Relationship by itself not sufficient to discredit a witness.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioner has been convicted for the murder of his wife's brother. The motive alleged is that he had been forced to divorce his wife on payment of Rs. 300 by his father‑in‑law. The deceased died two days after he was shot but the F. I. R. was registered on his own statement in the hospital. In this the petitioner was named as the accused. The incident took place on 10th July 1966, at about magreb time so there could be no chance of wrong identification as the fatal shot was fired from a distance of 2 karams. There are also two eye‑witnesses to the occurrence. One of them is Musa (P. W. 12), a cousin of the deceased, who was with the deceased at the time and the other was Sohna who was murdered after giving evidence in .the committing Court. His statement was brought in under section 33 of the Evidence Act. The recovery of a gun from the petitioner at the time of his arrest seven days later from underneath a railway bridge was not relied upon as the only non‑official attesting witnesses turned out to be a stock police witness. The medical evidence also supported the prosecution version. This evidence has been relied upon by the Courts below but it is contended in the jail petition that the interested witness should not have been relied upon. Relationship is not by itself sufficient to discredit a witness. No special enmity is suggested against either Sohna or Musa. There is no reason, therefore, to doubt their veracity. I would accordingly dismiss this petition on merits after condoning the delay of 55 days as no question other than that of appreciation of evidence arises in this case. The petition is dismissed. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑I agree. Leave refused.