1987 PLP 1549 (SCMR)
BOSTAN KHAN Petitioner Versus SULTAN KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1549 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BOSTAN KHAN Petitioner Versus SULTAN KHAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1549 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1549 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1549 (SCMR) (BOSTAN KHAN Petitioner Versus SULTAN KHAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16‑11‑1980 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 1977). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition against acquittal‑‑Plea that despite long standing enmity and blood feud between parties, testimony of interested witness should have been believed even in absence of independent corroborative evidence, not entertained‑‑Supreme Court concurred with conclusion arrived at by High Court and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Bostan Khan complainant‑petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High, Court dated 16‑11‑1980, dismissing his revision petition against the acquittal of the three respondents.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. The main contention raised by him is that the learned Courts below had not given due weight to the statement of Sher Muhammad, Head Constable (P.W.12) who has reached the spot after about 20/25 minutes and had seen Bostan Khan (P.W.9) present at the spot, who was "keeping the head of the deceased in his lap". He, therefore, contended that despite the fact that there was long‑standing enmity and blood feud between the parties, their testimony, specially that of Bostan Khan. (P.W.9), should have been believed in spite of the fact that there was no independent evidence to corroborate their statements.
3. Having carefully considered the testimony of Sher Muhammad, Head Constable (P.W.12) and Bostan Khan (PW.9), we are not persuaded to agree with this submission and respectfully concur with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for grant of leave which is consequently refused. M.I. /B‑13/S Petition dismissed.