1998 PLP 417 (SCMR)
KHAWAND BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 417 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Saiduzzaman Siddiuqi and Zia Mahmood Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | KHAWAND BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 417 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 417 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Saiduzzaman Siddiuqi and Zia Mahmood Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 417 (SCMR) (KHAWAND BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (In Cr.P. No. 103 of 1996).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Cr.P. No. 149 of 1996).
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 1996.
- Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (In Cr.P. No. 103 of 1996).
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for the State (in Cr.P. No. 103 of 1996).
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for the State (in Cr.P. No. 149 of 1996).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24‑6‑1996 passed by the Balochistan High Court, Quetta in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 302/324/120‑B/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Accused were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court under S.302/324/120‑ B/34, P.P.C. and on appeal, High Court upheld conviction and sentence of accused, but acquitted co‑accused‑‑‑Accused had contended that Division Bench of High Court having not believed/accepted ocular testimony as against co -accused, same could not form safe and valid basis for upholding accused's conviction unless same was corroborated by exceptionally strong and independent evidence which was not available‑‑‑Accused had further contended that incriminating recoveries relied upon by High Court as a corroborative circumstance could not furnish required corroboration as the weapons and the crime empties were sent to Fire‑arm Expert after inordinate delay‑‑‑Further contention was that injuries suffered by the deceased were not specifically attributed to each of accused and extreme penalty of death was not warranted‑‑ Contentions raised, among others needed consideration‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State (in Cr.P. No. 103 of 1996). Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State (in Cr.P. No. 149 of 1996).
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
Both the captioned petitions seek leave to appeal against a common judgment of Balochistan High Court, dated 24-6-1996 and, therefore, they are being disposed of together by this order.
2. Petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 103 of 1996 and Bangul Khan respondent in Criminal Petition No. 149 of 1996 were tried and convicted by Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Quetta under section 302/324/120-B/34, P.P.C., for committing the murder of Salal Bugti and causing serious injuries to Piara Khan PW and Major Tariq Tikka and each of them sentenced to death and seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs.50,
000. On appeal filed by the convicts, learned Judges of a Division Bench of Balochistan High Court upheld the convictions and sentence of the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 103 of 1996 but accepted the appeal of Bangul Khan, respondent in Criminal Petition No:149 of 1996 and ordered his acquittal.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel appearing in support of Criminal Petition No. 103 of 1996 that the learned Judges of the High Court, having not believed/accepted the ocular testimony as against the petitioners' co-accused Bangul Khan, the same could not for a safe and valid basis for upholding the petitioners' conviction unless it was corroborated by exceptionally strong and independent evidence which, in the present case, was not available. It is submitted that the incriminating recoveries relied upon by the learned Judges of the High Court as a corroborative circumstance- could not furnish the requisite corroboration as the weapons and the crime empties were sent to the fire-arm expert after inordinate delay. It has been further submitted that since the injuries suffered by the deceased were not specifically attributed to each of the petitioners, extreme penalty of death was not warranted. Contentions raised, amongst others, need consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted in Criminal Petition No. 103 of 1996. Leave is also granted in the connected Petition No. 149 of 1996 as it arises from the same impugned judgment. H.B.T./K-4/S Leave granted.