1968 PLP 1347 (SCMR)
JAGGU‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1347 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle‑Akbar, C. J. and Sajjad Ahmad, J |
| Parties | JAGGU‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1347 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1347 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle‑Akbar, C. J. and Sajjad Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 1347 (SCMR) (JAGGU‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ismail Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 28th June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 6th March, 1968 in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1966).
S. 302‑Plea of self‑defence‑Contention that High Court in appeal against conviction aid not make careful attempt to appreciate facts and circumstances in relation to versions set up on two sides to consider whether plea of self‑defence se: up by accused was reasonably possible‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State. ORDER FAZLE‑AKBAR, C. J.‑The petitioner stands convicted under section 302, p. P C. and sentenced to transportation for life for murder of one Ashraf. In this case, the petitioner took plea of self‑defence. The learned counsel has contended that it was the duty of the p High Court, as laid down by the Federal Court in the case of Safdar Ali (P L D 1953 F C 93) to place the allegations for the. prosecution and those for the defence in juxta position against the background of the proved facts and circumstances and thereafter to consider whether case set up by the petitioner was a reasonably possible one, but this was not done. The contention that the High Court did not make a careful attempt to appreciate to the facts and circumstances in relation to the versions set up on the two sides does not appear to be devoid of force. We, therefore, for safe administration of justice grant leave to appeal as prayed. Leave granted.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE‑AKBAR, C. J.‑The petitioner stands convicted under section 302, p. P C. and sentenced to transportation for life for murder of one Ashraf. In this case, the petitioner took plea of self‑defence. The learned counsel has contended that it was the duty of the p High Court, as laid down by the Federal Court in the case of Safdar Ali (P L D 1953 F C 93) to place the allegations for the. prosecution and those for the defence in juxta position against the background of the proved facts and circumstances and thereafter to consider whether case set up by the petitioner was a reasonably possible one, but this was not done. The contention that the High Court did not make a careful attempt to appreciate to the facts and circumstances in relation to the versions set up on the two sides does not appear to be devoid of force. We, therefore, for safe administration of justice grant leave to appeal as prayed. Leave granted.