1990 PLP 517 (SCMR)
SHER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BATI and 6 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 517 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SHER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BATI and 6 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 517 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 517 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 517 (SCMR) (SHER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BATI and 6 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.B.Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
- Rao M.Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) and Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to
6. Rao M.Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) and Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 20th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the complainant side in a murder case against acquittal. Two accused were acquitted by the trial Court. The remaining out of 8 were acquitted by the High Court. Admittedly the occurrence was of dark night. The moon had not yet arisen at the relevant time. Learned counsel, however, vehemently argued that in the circumstances of this case, some witnesses, if not all, could have identified the culprits in the star light. If in a case like the present one it is held by the lower Court that the witnesses were able to identify the culprits and the conviction is maintained, it would be a different situation in the Supreme Court. The appreciation of evidence in that case by the lower Courts might be accepted. This is, however, a petition against acquittal. The position is different. Even on a difference of opinion on the assessment of evidence, if it does not suffer from well‑known infirmities like non‑reading or misreading of evidence on substantial points, the acquittal would not be set aside. In our view, therefore, the first point raised by the learned counsel regarding possibility of genuine/correct identification by the eye‑witnesses, in the context of this petition for leave to appeal against acquittal, has no force. After the failure on the first point the learned counsel who had also raised the point regarding corroboration could not pursue the second point to its logical end. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, leave to appeal is refused. M.A.K./S‑431/5 Leave refused.