1990 PLP 509 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMED and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 509 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Allah, Ghulam Mujaddid and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMED and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 509 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 509 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Allah, Ghulam Mujaddid and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 509 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMED and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 125-R of 1988).
- Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No.116 of 1988).
- M. Akhtar Additional Advocate-General with Gulshan Ara Alam, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.1 to 4 (in Criminal Petition No.116 of 1988).
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 1989.
- Rao M. Yousaf, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for the State (in Criminal Petition No.116 of 1988).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 25-1-1988 in Criminal Appeal No.447 of 1985 and Murder Reference No.174 of 1985).
S.302
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Participation of accused in the occurrence was established by strong independent corroboration of the eye-witne ss account
Leave to appeal refused.
S.302
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal granted to consider the contentions that no acceptable corroboration qua accused was forthcoming and assumption by High Court about recovery of weapon of offence was due to misreading and non-reading of evidence
Petition filed by complainant was also ordered to be heard alongwith the appeal. Nemo for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 125-R of 1988). Rao M. Yousaf, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for the State (in Criminal Petition No.116 of 1988).
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 125-R of 1988). Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No.116 of 1988). M. Akhtar Additional Advocate-General with Gulshan Ara Alam, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.1 to 4 (in Criminal Petition No.116 of 1988). Rao M. Yousaf, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for the State (in Criminal Petition No.116 of 1988). Date of hearing: 20th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions in a case of culpable homicide--one is by the complainant side (Cr. P. No.116 of 1988) and the other is by the accused/convicts side (Cr. P. No.125 of 1988). Several accused were involved in this case. Only two have sought leave to appeal against their conviction under section 302, P.P.C. with sentence of life imprisonment for each. They are Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq petitioners in Cr. P. No.125 of 1988. After hearing their learned counsel, at some length, we find no justification for grant of leave to appeal to Muhammad Rafiq convict. His participation in the occurrence is established by strong independent corroboration of the eye-witness account. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused to him. The case of Bashir Ahmad, however, stands on a different footing. His learned counsel has vehemently contended that there is no acceptable corroboration qua him. The assumption in that behalf by the High Court about B the recovery of weapon of offence, it is further argued, is due to misreading and non-reading of evidence regarding which plea of wrong identity of recovery witness, has been very strenuously pressed by the learned counsel. After hearing him we consider the case of Bashir Ahmed fit for re examination of evidence so as to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel as also the other points arising in this case. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted in Cr. P. No.125 of 1988 to Bashir Ahmed accused/convict only. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant side in Cr. P. No.116 of 1988, we consider it fit not to dispose it of at this stage. It shall be C heard alongwith appeal arising out of Cr. P. No.125 of 1988. M.A.K./B-123/S Order accordingly.