2012 PLP 583 (SCMR)
AJMAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 583 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Khilji Arif Hussain and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | AJMAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 583 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 583 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Khilji Arif Hussain and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 583 (SCMR) (AJMAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 27th May, 2010.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17-3-2009 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2007 with M.R. No.15 of 2007).
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Related eye-witnesses
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider contentions of accused that it was a case of no evidence and only two eye-witnesses who were closely related to the deceased could not reasonably explain their presence at the spot; and whether principles laid down by Supreme Court for safe administration of justice were kept in view while rendering the judgment under appeal. Sahab Khan v. The State 1997 SCMR 871 and Farrukh Sayyar v. Chairman, NAB, Islamabad 2004 SCMR 1 ref. Syed Arshad Hussain, Additional P.-G., KPK for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Inter alia contends that it was a case of no evidence; that only two so called eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased; that they could not reasonably explained their presence at the spot; that the learned High Court in dismissing the appellant's appeal and affirming the judgment of the learned trial Court did not advert to afore-referred issues and the judgment on that score is perfunctory and violative of the law laid down by this Court in Sahab Khan v. The State (1997 SCMR 871) and Farrukh Sayyar v. Chairman, Nab, Islamabad (2004 SCMR 1).
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, leave is granted, inter alia, to consider the afore-mentioned points as also whether the principles laid down by this court for safe administration of justice were kept in view while rendering the judgment under challenge. M.H./A-3/SC Leave granted.