1982 PLP 639 (SCMR)
ALLAHYAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 639 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLAHYAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 639 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 639 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 639 (SCMR) (ALLAHYAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Yasin Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 27th February, 1982.
- M. Yasin Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 24-11-1981, passed in Criminal Revision No. 182 of 1981). - S. 307/149 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3) Murder-Leave to appeal-Contention that High Court erred in maintaining petitioner's conviction on evidence of same four eye witnesses whose testimony he himself rejected qua his four co-accused specially in absence of any independent corroboratory evidence to support same and reasons given for distinguishing petitioner's case not very convincing-Held, High Court gave reasons for distinguishing petitioner's case from that of other four co-accused but after going through the para containing such reasons case appears to require further consideration-Leave to appeal, in circumstances, granted. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing : 27th February, 1982. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑The petitioner was tried along with four others, inter alia, for an offence under section 307/149, P. P. C. The occurrence took place on 3‑12‑1977 at 8 a.m. The F. I. R. was lodged on 4‑12‑1977 at 11 a.m. (i.e. after a delay of 27 hours). In the F. I. R. it was specifically mentioned that each of the accused was armed with a dang and inflicted injuries with them. The medical evidence, however, revealed that out of the 12 injuries on the person of Jehangir (P. W. 4), three had been caused with a sharp‑edged weapon. The only recovery made during the investigation was of a dang from Allah Yar petitioner but it was not found stained with blood.
2. At the trial the prosecution relied, mainly on the ocular testimony of four eye‑witnesses, and the recovery of the dang from Allah Yar petitioner (which was not stained with blood) could not be used to corroborate the ocular testimony. The trial Court convicted all the accused and sentenced them to 4 years' R. I with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or in default to further R. I. of 6 months each. On appeal the High Court acquitted tire four co‑accused but maintained the conviction of Allah Yar petitioner. Hence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge‑in‑Chamber erred in maintaining petitioner's conviction on the evidence of the same four eye‑witnesses whose testimony he himself rejected qua his four co‑accused, in the absence of any independent corroboratory evidence to support the same qua him and that the reasons given by the learned Judge for distinguishing the petitioner's case are not very convincing.
4. The learned High Court Judge has given the reasons for distinguish ing the petitioner's case from that of the other four co‑accused in paragraph (6) of the judgment. After going through the said paragraph, we feel that the case does require further consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose. Leave granted.