1982 PLP 1023 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MOHSIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1023 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Petitioner's counsel contending that prosecution case rested only on testimony of two inimical eye-witnesses and their testimony not corroborated by any evidence-Case, held, needs re-examination of evidence to consider question raised-Leave to appeal granted -Witness. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MOHSIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1023 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 1023 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Petitioner's counsel contending that prosecution case rested only on testimony of two inimical eye-witnesses and their testimony not corroborated by any evidence-Case, held, needs re-examination of evidence to consider question raised-Leave to appeal granted -Witness. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1023 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MOHSIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbool Ehahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Jariullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (Complainant)
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 1982.
- Maqbool Ehahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Jariullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (Complainant)
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, dated 25-1.1-1980 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1129/78). -- Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Petitioner's counsel contending that prosecution case rested only on testimony of two inimical eye-witnesses and their testimony not corroborated by any evidence-Case, held, needs re-examination of evidence to consider question raised-Leave to appeal granted -[Witness].
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 23‑12‑1980 dismissing his appeal in a case under section 302, P. P. C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the prosecution case rests only on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses who were inimical and it is apparent from the evidence on the record that they were not present at the spot. He contends that there is no corroboration of their testimony available on the record and it ought not have been relied for convicting the, petitioner.
3. After going through the statements of the eye‑witnesses we feel that case needs re‑examination of the evidence to consider the above‑noted points. Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose. Leave granted.