1968 SC MR 261 (PLP)
SHER ALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SC MR 261 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | SHER ALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SC MR 261 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SC MR 261 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SC MR 261 (PLP) (SHER ALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdus Salam Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Muhammad Yahya, Advocate Supreme Court with him instructed by S. M. Huy, Attorney for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 18th July 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 1965). Appeal to Supreme Court-Criminal Appeal-Appreciation of evidence-Supreme Court normally accept that reached by Court below. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-The petitioners stand convicted under section 302, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life each for murder of one, Sundar Ali. The incident took place on 14th June 1964, at about isha prayers' time, near the house of the deceased. When the deceased was returning from his Maktab, these petitioners armed with various deadly weapons, attacked and killed him on the spot. Direct evidence was given by 12 witnesses. The trial Judge relying on their evidence, convicted and sentenced them. On appeal, the High Court saw no reason to differ from the findings of the trial Judge and accordingly maintained their conviction and sentence. Mr. A. Salam Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, challenged the evidence of the eye-witnesses on the ground that identification was not possible in a dark night. Furthermore, he attempted to argue that the occurrence did not take place at the time and in the manner as stated by the eye-witnesses. In short, his contention is that the evidence has been wrongly evaluated and was not of sufficient weight to justify the conclusion reached by the High Court. Thus, the points raised merely go to the question of apprecia tion of evidence. This Court normally refuses to reject the view which the High Court took of the evidence and to consider themselves the evidence in detail. It is our usual practice to accept the appreciation of evidence reached by the Court from which the appeal is brought. It will suffice to say that the view taken by the High Court of the evidence is not unreasonable, nor has it been reached by a disregard of the principles laid down for appreciation of evidence. We, therefore, see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.