2007 PLP 1875 (SCMR)
THE STATE through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. — Petitioner Versus Mst. KHOGA JAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1875 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Actg. C.J., Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Ghulam Rabbani JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. — Petitioner Versus Mst. KHOGA JAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1875 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1875 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Actg. C.J., Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Ghulam Rabbani JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1875 (SCMR) (THE STATE through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. — Petitioner Versus Mst. KHOGA JAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petitions Nos.104-P, 105-P and 106-P of 2003).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Criminal Petitions Nos.104-P, 105-P and 106-P of 2003).
- THE STATE through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P.----Petitioner
- 3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Zaman, Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the State and with his assistance gone through the impugned judgment as well as judicial confessions recorded by respondents Mst. Khoga Jan and Abdul Rahim before two different Judicial Officers on 21-6-1999. Both the Judicial Officers had appeared at the trial of respondents and supported the prosecution but the High Court while interfering with the judgment of the trial Court observed that confessions recorded by both the respondents immediately after their arrest were exculpatory. Furthermore, the motive ascribed though prima facie corroborated by the facts and circumstances emanating from the confessional statements did not impress the Division Bench of the High Court. It is vehemently urged that the High Court completely misread the evidence and misconstrued the record thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice:
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302/34
Constitution. of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Judicial Officers who had recorded the judicial confessions of accused had supported the prosecution at the trial, but High Court while interfering with the judgment of Trial Court observed that confessions recorded by the accused immediately after their arrest were exculpatory
Motive ascribed though prima facie corroborated by the facts and circumstances emanating from the confessional statements, did not impress the High Court
Case for deeper appreciation of evidence, thus, was prima facie made out
Leave to appeal was granted to State for reappraisal of evidence accordingly.?
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. C.J.
These connected petitions for leave to appeal are directed against Peshawar High Court judgment, dated 29-5-2003 whereby respondents' appeals against their conviction and death sentence on the charge of Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Khan Sharif committed on the intervening night between 9/10 of June, 1999 were allowed.
2. At the conclusion of the trial, the respondents were found guilty of the charge and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, whereas on reappraisal of evidence in appeal, they have been found to be not guilty of the charge, hence, these petitions arising out of a common judgment.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Zaman, Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the State and with his assistance gone through the impugned judgment as well as judicial confessions recorded by respondents Mst. Khoga Jan and Abdul Rahim before two different Judicial Officers on 21-6-1999. Both the Judicial Officers had appeared at the trial of respondents and supported the prosecution but the High Court while interfering with the judgment of the trial Court observed that confessions recorded by both the respondents immediately after their arrest were exculpatory. Furthermore, the motive ascribed though prima facie corroborated by the facts and circumstances emanating from the confessional statements did not impress the Division Bench of the High Court. It is vehemently urged that the High Court completely misread the evidence and misconstrued the record thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice:
4. After hearing learned counsel, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal for reappraisal of evidence as in our opinion case for deeper) appreciation of evidence is, prima facie, made out. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Bailable warrants shall issue against all .the respondents in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 returnable to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, N.H.Q./S-25/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.