1987 PLP 1204 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD WALAYAT — Petitioner Versus AMAN ULLAH and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1204 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Actg. CJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WALAYAT — Petitioner Versus AMAN ULLAH and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1204 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1204 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Actg. CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1204 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD WALAYAT — Petitioner Versus AMAN ULLAH and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Shaukat Ali Saqab for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302/ 34
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 Revision against acquittal--Occurrence taking place in dark--Trial Court finding witnesses to be giving exaggerated version, having not seen occurrence founder being coming to conclusion after due appraisal of evidence-- Judgment of acquittal, held, could be upset in exceptional cases where there was glaring mistake ether of law or of fact or reasoning was neither judicial nor sound--Case not falling within aforesaid exceptions, impugned judgment not interfered in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The motive was that five months prior to the occurrence, Nazir deceased abducted Mst.Azra Bibi, sister of Aman Ullah. A case was registered against him. He was on bail. The prosecution examined Muhammad Walayat and Nazar Muhammad as eye-witnesses. The other evidence consisted of recovery of carbine and the post-mortem report of the deceased.
2. Respondents/accused denied the allegations. They pleaded not guilty. They declined to produce any evidence in defence. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that the learned trial Court erred in law in discarding the ocular evidence. The eye-witnessed had no motive to falsely implicate the respondents. They weie natural witnesses. Their testimony was corroborated by the recovery and the medical evidence. It was further contended that the impugned judgment resulted in miscarriage of justice.
3. I have considered these submissions. The trial Court found that the witnesses gave an exaggerated version. They did not see the occurrence. They were interested. Tie occurrence took place in the dark. The learned trial Court did not believe the evidence of recovery. For the foregoing reasons the respondents were given the benefit of doubt.
4. I think that the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion, after due appraisal of the relevant evidence.
5. Judgment of acquittal is to be upset in exceptional cases where there is glaring mistake either of law or of fact or the reasoning is neither judicial nor sound. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring his case within anyone of the aforesaid exceptions. I don't think that the impugned judgment as such calls for interference. The revision is dismissed in limine. S.A./M-209/L Acquittal maintained.