1987 PLP 760 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 760 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 760 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 760 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 760 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Wahid Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 26‑5‑1982 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 1981). ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 307 read with S.34‑‑Evidence‑‑Ocular testimony furnished by prosecution witnesses believed by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court‑‑Contention that evidence was not worthy of reliance and was not properly appreciated‑‑No infraction of any rule or principle of law governing appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, however, found to have taken place in case‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Wahid Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1987. S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑Leave to appeal is sought by the petitioners herein from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑5‑1982 whereby their criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentences them to life imprisonment with fine under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. was dismissed.
2. In the occurrence which had taken place in village Talwara District Lahore on 28‑7‑1980 one Zulfikar Ali was killed and Abdul Khaliq (P.W.8) was injured. The prosecution examined three eye‑witnesses of which Abdul Khaliq was admittedly neither related nor was found to be in any manner inimical to the petitioners /accused. The deceased had suffered as many as 18 injuries on his person out of which injury No: 1 was caused by fire‑arm and the rest by sharp‑edged weapon. The ocular testimony furnished by the prosecution witnesses was believed by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel before us was that the evidence was notworthy of reliance and was not properly appreciated. This argument turns only on the question of appreciation of evidence.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record we are satisfied that there has been no infraction of any rule or principle of law governing appreciation of evidence in the criminal cases. We, therefore, find no substance in the petition, which is dismissed. S.Q./M‑43/S Petition dismissed.