1989 PLP 1375 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAHZADA alias SHADA and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1375 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muharmmad Haleem, CJ., Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAHZADA alias SHADA and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1375 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1375 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muharmmad Haleem, CJ., Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1375 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAHZADA alias SHADA and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, MA. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 14‑6‑1987 passed by the Lahore High Court, in CrA. No.24/84, CrA.22/84 and Murder Reference No.79/1984). ‑‑‑S.302/34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Approver's evidence‑ Value‑‑Reappraisal of evidence as a whole‑‑Contention that conviction could not rest on the evidence of approver without independent corroboration in material particulars and if the testimony of other witness was to be relied on as a piece of corroboratory evidence then it was doubtful whether he was reliable witness as his statement was recorded twelve days after the occurrence without the witness having himself reported the incident to the Investigating Officer if he was an eye witness‑‑Having examined the evidence and the judgment, Supreme Court was of the view that the evidence required re‑appraisal in the interest of justice‑‑Leave was granted.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑These are two connected petitions by the convicts who seek leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences. It was alleged that deceased Shuja Ullah had promised to send Sohail and Muhammad Bashir . Mir abroad for employment and extorted from them Rs.4,000 each about two years before the occurrence, but did not keep his promise upon which they demanded the return of their money but the deceased put them off. The deceased had disappeared in the morning of 25th December, 1980, alongwith Muhammad Bashir Mir from his house and was killed in front of House No.274‑F, Mohallah Nishtarabad in the city of Rawalpindi late in the ,evening. The report of the incident was lodged by Salimullah Khan a brother of the deceased at Police Station C‑Division, Rawalpindi at 01.45 hours on 26th of December, 1980. The petitioners were convicted for murder on the evidence of Muhammad Bashir Mir which was said to have been corroborated by that of Pir Faqir Ali who was examined 12 days after the incident on his name having been disclosed by Muhammad Bashir Mir, the approver. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the conviction could not rest on the evidence of Muhammad Bashir Mir without independent corroboration in material particulars and if the testimony of Pir Faqir Ali is to be relied on as a piece of corroboratory evidence then it is doubtful whether he is realiable witness as his statement was recorded 12 days after the occurrence without the witness having himself reported the incident to the Investigating Officer if he was an eye‑witness. Having examined the evidence and the judgment, we are of the view that the evidence requires reappraisal in the interest of justice. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to both the convicts. A.A./M‑789/S Leave to appeal granted.