1992 P Cr (PLP)
SHAUKAT ALI alias GOPA‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar and, Khalil-ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI alias GOPA‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar and, Khalil-ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (SHAUKAT ALI alias GOPA‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Aftab Farrukh assisted by Kh. Hafeez Ullah for Appellant.
- Muhammad Zafar Chaudhry for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 28th July, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑‑Accused was found in possession of a dagger without licence during investigation in connected murder case‑‑‑One of the witnesses of recovery was related to complainant of murder case but the other witness had no bias against accused‑‑‑Relationship of one witness with complainant was not sufficient to discard the testimony of an unbiased witness‑‑‑Conviction and sentence was maintained in circumstances. Rana Muhammad Arif, AA.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.‑‑‑ Shaukat Ali alias Gopa, aged 24/25 years, was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, for having been found in possession of a dagger (without licence) during investigation of the murder case registered against him and his brother, Allah Dad and Liaqat at Police Station City Chiniot, on 23‑12‑1986. Learned trial Judge vide judgment, dated 24‑6‑1989 convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months.
2. The conviction has been challenged through this appeal.
3. The prosecution had examined three P.Ws. at the trial. We have. gone through their statements and have failed to find out any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the testimonies of the witnesses do not inspire confidence as one of the P.Ws. was related to the complainant of the murder case. Even if it is believed that one of the witnesses of recovery was related to the complainant of the murder case, that alone, in our view, is not sufficient to discard the testimony of the other witnesses who had no bias against the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit. However, the sentence awarded in this case is directed to run concurrently with the sentence awarded to the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.535 of 1989 under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. vide judgment passed today. SA./S‑1018/L Appeal dismissed,