1987 PLP 1888 (SCMR)
AHMAD NAWAZ and another Petitioners Versus The STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1888 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD NAWAZ and another Petitioners Versus The STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1888 (SCMR)?
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 1888 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, 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 1888 (SCMR) (AHMAD NAWAZ and another Petitioners Versus The STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.B. Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order dated 16-1-1983 of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1980).
Ss. 302, 323 & 34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185`~ini Appreciation of evidence--Conviction of petitioners resting upon evidence provided by eye-witness who not only lived at a short distance from place of occurrence but were also injured during course of occurrence and thus their presence at the spot at relevant time was not open to any serious doubt--Such witnesses although closely related to deceased, yet there was no background of enmity between the parties--Trial Court and High Court, held, were justified in founding conviction of petitioners on testimony of eye-witnesses--No evidence that just before attack upon him the deceased had given any provocation to petitioners--Petitioners having already been given benefit of lesser sentence, no case for interfering with judgment of High Court had been made out--Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal to challenge their convictions of offences under sections 302 and 323, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Their convictions rest upon the ocular evidence provided by Muhammad Khan and Ahmad Yar. Not only these witnesses lived at a short distance from the place of occurrence but were also injured during the course of occurrence. Thus, their presence at the spot at the relevant time is not open to any serious doubt. It is true that they were closely related to the deceased but then there was no background of enmity between the parties. The trial Court and the High Court were in the circumstances justified in founding the conviction of the petitioners on their testimony.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the investigating officer had changed the place of occurrence and that in fact the occurrence had taken place near their own dera. Even if this assertion is true it will not in this case seriously compromise the creditability of the ocular testimony. There is no evidence that just before the attack upon him the deceased had given any provocation to the petitioners. They have already been given the benefit of the lesser sentence. Thus, no case for interfering with the judgment of the High Court has been made out. Leave is accordingly refused. S.Q./A-97/S. Leave refused.