1990 PLP 291 (SCMR)
N/A
| Citation | 1990 PLP 291 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 291 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 291 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 291 (SCMR) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Rafique Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 1989.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General, S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 21st September, 1987 in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1985 and Murder Reference No. 44 of 1985). ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petition against acquittal‑‑‑Petitioner could not point out any misreading or non‑reading of any evidence.‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence was within the exclusive domain of High Court‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to reappraise evidence‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General, S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Rafique Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.2. Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General, S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Date of hearing: 20th June, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 21‑9‑1987 whereby the death sentence awarded to the respondent was not confirmed; his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted. He accordingly seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment. The High Court after discussing the relevant evidence with special reference to the ocular version observed that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence. It was further found that the ocular account was in conflict with the medical evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High Court erred in law in holding that the prosecution witnesses had not seen the occurrence simply because they did not intervene at the time of occurrence. This submission has no force unless the learned counsel could point out any misreading or non‑reading of any evidence. This he has not been able to do and as far as the appreciation of evidence is concerned, that is exclusively the domain of the High Court. We are not going to reappraise the evidence. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./M‑1010/S Petition dismissed.