1984 PLP 714 (SCMR)
SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 714 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 714 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 714 (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: 1984 PLP 714 (SCMR) (SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1983.
- S. Abid Nawaz Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Circuit, Bahawalpur), dated 10‑5‑1980, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 78/B WY and Murder Reference No. 5 of 1979/BWP). ‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑Leave to appeal granted on ground that injuries caused to deceased who was alleged to have been shot by accused with a ' 12 bore pistol were, in fact, caused by rifle shots and as such medical evidence contradicted ocular testimony of eye‑witnesses to that extent. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑
S.302/34‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑Apprecia tion of evidence‑Evidence showing no discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony‑Leave already granted recalled and petition dismissed. S. Abid Nawaz Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This Jail Appeal by Sardar and Dildar by leave of this Court granted on 21‑1‑1981 on the ground that the injuries caused to Muhammad Ali deceased, who is alleged to have been shot at by Dildar appellant with a .12 bore pistol were, in fact, caused by rifle shots and as such the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony of the eye‑witnesses to that extent.
2. We have carefully gone through the prosecution version as given by the eye‑witnesses as also the medical evidence. We notice that according to the prosecution Sardar appellant who was carrying a rifle is also stated to have fired at Muhammad Ali deceased, while Dildar appellant shot at him with his .12 bore pistol. The absence of .12 bore injuries on the person of Muhammad Ali deceased may, at the most go to show that either he did not fire at the deceased or the shots fired by him missed. But in any case it is established that he was present with Sardar throughout the incident in which the two persons were killed and one, namely Saeed Ahmad (P. W. If) was injured Saeed P. W. is stated to have been fired at by Dildar with .12 bore pistol and medical examination reveals the presence of pellet injuries on his person. As such Dildar was rightly convicted along with Sardar by application of section 34, P. P. C.
3. After carefully considering the evidence we are of the view that there is no discrepancy between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony. Leave order is, therefore, recalled and the petition dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.