1969 PLP 66 (SCMR)
RAJA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 66 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAJA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 66 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 66 (SCMR)?
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: 1969 PLP 66 (SCMR) (RAJA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dates of hearing : 9th and 10th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 5th July 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 1967/Murder Reference No. 64 of 1967).
S. 302‑Eye‑witnesses all near relations of deceased but otherwise natural witnesses who could be expected there‑Testimony corroborated by (i) extra judicial confession ; (ii) recovery of hatchet and shirt stained with human blood; and (iii) testimony of two other witnesses‑Evidence held, correctly relied upon by lower Courts‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioner has been convicted for the murder of one Sammun and for causing grievous injuries to the latter's son and daughter while they were all sleeping in their own house. The incident took place at pichle sotewela on 1‑5‑1966 which was a moonlit night. It was witnessed by the two injured persons, the widow of the deceased and the wife of a brother of the deceased. It is true that they are all near relations of the deceased but they are natural witnesses who were expected to be there. They had no special motive to falsely implicate the petitioner leaving out the real culprit. The presence of the injured witnesses is in any way established beyond doubt. The only question is whether they have been rightly relied upon. I see no reason to doubt their veracity. The testimony has been amply corroborated by the extra‑judicia confession made by the petitioner to Allah Bakhsh (P. W. 13), by the recovery of a hatchet and a shirt stained with human blood from the petitioner at the time of his arrest upon production by Allah Bakhsh, the medical evidence and the testimony of two other persons, Yara (P. W. 11) and Sikandar (P. W. 12), who on being attracted by the line and cry arrived immediately afterwards and saw the petitioner running away, Apart from these there is also strong motive for the crime. This evidence is overwhelming and I see no reason to doubt that it has been correctly appreciated by the Courts below. I would, therefore, dismiss this petition on merits after condoning the delay of 51 days. The petition is dismissed. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑I agree. Leave refused.