1968 SCMR 570 (PLP)
AMER DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 570 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMER DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 570 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 570 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 570 (PLP) (AMER DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amjad Khan Cliaudhury, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from, the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 22nd December 1967, in Criminal. Appeal No. 705 of 1966/Murder Reference No, 193 of 1966). ( ) Penal Cade (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Extra-judicial con fession' by accused-Recovery of crime weapon (toke) toka injuries on deceased and ; fact, that accused was caught red handed-Sufficient corroboration of confession. (b) Penal (XLV of 1860), S. 302-conviction for double murder, commuted at two different spots-Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-.Ground that two offences were not committed in same transaction and so joint trial illegal Ground not taken in any Court below nor taken in petition for Special Leave-Leave" refused by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-The petitioner Amir Din alias Bir Din stands convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death for the murder of one, Siddique. He has also been convicted under section 307, P. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years 'or attempted murder of Mukhtar Ahmed. The prosecution case briefly was that on the night between 1st and 2nd August 1965, when Siddique was sleeping in front of his house in Kills No. 4, the petitioner injured him with, a toka and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The petitioner then went to Killa No. 8, which was 40 karams from Killa No. 4, and attacked Mukhtar Ahmed who was sleeping in front of his baithak. , Sher Muhammad, father of Mukhtar Ahmade, and one, Ismail, woke up hearing the cries, rushed to the spot and found the petitioner giving toka blows to .Mukhtar Ahmed, They, With the help of Chiragh and AU Muhammad, who had reached the spot, simultaneously, caught hold of the assailant and took away the blood-stained toka from him. On their -inquiry, the accused told them that he bad also killed Siddique in Killa No.
4. The High Court accepting the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the extra-judicial confession of the petitioner, maintained his Convictions and sentences. The learned counsel has contended that the Courts below should not have relied on the alleged extra judicial confession in the absence of independent corroboration. It will suffice to say that recovery of the toka immediately after the occurrence and the A toka injuries found on the deceased, may be regarded as furnishing required corroboration of the extra judicial confession. Furthermore, the petitioner was caught- red-handed and hence the Courts below rightly relied on the evidence of the eye witnesses. The learned counsel then attempted to argue that as the offences were not committed in the same transaction, the petitioner could not be tried for boththe offences in the same trial. This point was not taken in the Courts below. No such ground has also been, taken in this petition. Hence, he cannot be permitted to raise this question at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused