1989SCMR778 (PLP)
MAKHMOOD HUSSAIN and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR778 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | MAKHMOOD HUSSAIN and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV or 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR778 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV or 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR778 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR778 (PLP) (MAKHMOOD HUSSAIN and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 98-R of 1987).
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 101-R of 1987).
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1988.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 98‑R of 1987).
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 101‑R of 1987).
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 1-7-1987 in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 1987 and Criminal Revision No. 13$ of 1985). -S .302--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal granted! to examine contentions that medical evidence contradicted ocular version; post mortem report showed that some of the injuries of the deceased had blackening and charring which suggested close range firing whereas according to the eye witnesses account firing took place from a long distance and in absence of any other reliable corroborative evidence ocular testimony which was of interested type was not sufficient in law to sustain conviction. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1988. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Two separate petitions for leave to appeal have been filed by Makhmood Hussain and three others (accused‑convicts) and Abdul Hanif (complainant). In the former the convicts have challenged their conviction and sentence and the latter is for enhancement of sentence. Raja Muhammad Anwar argued that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular version. According to the post‑mortem report, some of the injuries of the deceased had blackening and charring which suggest close range firing whereas according to the eye‑witnesses account the firing took place from a long distance. It was further submitted that in the absence of any other reliable corroborative evidence the ocular testimony which is of interested type was not sufficient in law to sustain the conviction. The points need examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Simultaneously we would also like to consider the request of Abdul Hanif petitioner and accordingly grant leave to appeal in that petition as well. M.BA./M‑722/S Leave granted.