1994 PLP 1204 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1204 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1204 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1204 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1204 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Chaudhry Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th Mardi, 1993.
- Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16‑11‑1990 of the Lahore. High Court, Lahore, passed in Crl. A. No. 358/90 and M.R. No.115/90). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Time‑barred petition‑‑‑Petition was barred' by time by four days and no good ground had been put forth for condonation of delay‑ ‑Even otherwise reasons given by High Court for setting aside conviction of accused under S. 302, P.P.C. were based on proper appraisal of evidence on record and the principles enunciated by Supreme Court in respect of circumstantial evidence and extra‑judicial confession‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.‑‑‑This is a petition by Muhammad Ramzan, the complainant in a murder case, seeking leave to appeal from the Lahore High Court's judgment dated 16‑11‑1992. Muhammad Mumtaz respondent was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for committing the murder of the complainant's brother, namely, Muhammad Afzal; convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.10,
000. He was also convicted under section 201, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years' R.1; and some fine on that count was .also imposed on him. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the respondent under section 302, P.P.C. Resultantly, his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. was set aside. However, his conviction and sentences under section 201, P.P.C. were not disturbed. The respondent's acquittal from commission of offence under section 302, P.P.C. is under challenge in this petition.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel. This petition is barred by time by 4 days, and no good ground has been putforth for the condonation of delay. Even on merits the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in these proceedings. The reasons given by the learned Judges for setting aside the respondent's conviction under section 302, P.P.C. are based on proper appraisal of, evidence on the record and the principles enunciated by this Court in respect of circumstantial evidence and extra‑judicial confession. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and the leave refused. N.H.Q./M‑1954/S Leave refused.