2007 SCMR 1366 (PLP)
THE STATE through Advocate-General, N . -W . F. P., Peshawar — Petitioner Versus SAHIBZADA HAYATULLAH — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 SCMR 1366 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar, Falak Sher and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE through Advocate-General, N . -W . F. P., Peshawar — Petitioner Versus SAHIBZADA HAYATULLAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 SCMR 1366 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 SCMR 1366 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar, Falak Sher and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 SCMR 1366 (PLP) (THE STATE through Advocate-General, N . -W . F. P., Peshawar — Petitioner Versus SAHIBZADA HAYATULLAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- THE STATE through Advocate-General, N . -W . F. P., Peshawar----Petitioner
- ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- It is contended by Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that the learned High Court while acquitting the respondent has, not appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its true(?) perspective and the judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. It is further contended that the complainant Aurangzeb Khan P.W.7 as well as Gul Rehman P.W.8, the eye-witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and there was no reason to discard their testimony.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 13-11-2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2000).
Art. 185(3)
Counsel for the petitioner had contended that High Court, while acquitting respondent, had not appreciated evidence adduced by prosecution in its true perspective and judgment was based on conjectures and surmises and that complainant as well as prosecution witness and eye-witnesses had fully supported the case of prosecution and there was no reason to discard their testimony
Contentions raised requiring consideration, leave to appeal was granted to reappraise prosecution evidence in its entirety for safe administration of justice.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.
It is contended by Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that the learned High Court while acquitting the respondent has, not appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its true(?) perspective and the judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. It is further contended that the complainant Aurangzeb Khan P.W.7 as well as Gul Rehman P.W.8, the eye-witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and there was no reason to discard their testimony.
2. The contentions require consideration. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to reappraise the prosecution evidence in its entirety for safe administration of justice. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court be issued against the respondent. H. B. T./S-8/SC Petition allowed.