1968 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J |
| Parties | GHULAM ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Shafi Sheikh‑I, Advocate, Supreme Court instruc ted by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302‑Conviction for murder-- Dying declaration relied upon by trial Court eliminated from consideration by High Court‑Certain other features also requiring re‑examination‑Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The three petitioners and their co‑accused Muhammad Afzal were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, under section 302/34, P. P. C. for the murder of their co‑village‑ Qurban Hussain and sentenced to transportation for life each. On appeal the High Court acquitted Muhammad Afzal, but maintained the conviction of the petitioners and in pursuance to the revision petition filed by Muhammad Bashir, P. W., enhanced the sentence of Ahmad Gul, petitioner to the extreme penalty of death. Under Article 58(2) of the Constitution Ahmad Gul the condemned petitioner has a right of appeal to this Court. In regard to the others there are also certain feature: in the case which require re‑examination of the evidence. Muhammad Afzal accused acquitted by the High Court was alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased, but no punctured wound was found on him. The dying declaration of the deceased on which the trial Court placed reliance was eliminated by the learned Judges on the opinion by the doctor who had performed autopsy that on account of the head injury the deceased might have lost conscious ness immediately. We grant leave to appeal. Leave granted.