1969 PLP 563 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 563 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Appeal to Supreme Court‑Criminal appeal |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 563 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Appeal to Supreme Court‑Criminal appeal as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 563 (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: 1969 PLP 563 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Anwar, Advocate Federal Court for Appellant.
- Shamim Hussain Kadri, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 2nd February 1954.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated the 2nd February 1953, of the Chief Court of Sind, in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1952 and Confirmation Case No. 62 of 1952). -‑Appreciation and weight of evidence‑No interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
M. Anwar, Advocate Federal Court for Appellant. Shamim Hussain Kadri, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing : 2nd February 1954. AKRAM, J.‑This appeal, by our leave, obtained by the appellant Muhammad Yousaf, arises from a judgment of the Chief Court of Sind, upholding the conviction and the sentence of death passed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge of Tharparkar, under section 302 of the Penal Code for the murder of one Mst. Asiat on the 19th January 1952, by giving her a blow on the head with a hatchet. The prosecution case was that the appellant having failed in his efforts to secure the hand of Mst. Hurmat, killed her mother Mst. Asiat out of spite and revenge. Prosecution witnesses 3, 6 and 7 deposed as eye‑witnesses to the occurrence and some corroboration of their evidence was also forthcoming by the recovery of a hatchet at the instance of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant urged that the eye‑witnesses being near relations of the deceased should not have been relied upon; that their evidence was improbable and some discrepancies in it were also evident; that furthermore some of the material witnesses had not been examined by the prosecution. These matters, however, relate to the appreciation an.: weight of evidence which is for the final Court of facts of determine. No such error of any kind, as can attract our special jurisdiction, has been pointed out to us in the case, I see no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. SHAHABUDDIN AND A. R. CORNELIUS, JJ.‑We agree that the appeal be dismissed. Leave was granted in this case as the evidence of Mst. Hurmat was that she came to know of the murder of her mother only in the morning while the occurrence was said to have taken place at midnight a few paces from the house where she was sleeping, and this fact the learned Judges of the Sind Chief Court characterised as "odd" and left it there, observing that it should not be given undue weight. But on a scrutiny of the evidence we find that this circumstance is by no means inexplicable. The eye‑witnesses have deposed that there was moonlight when the murder took place, which renders it probable that the time of occurrence was nearer the dawn than the mid‑night hour, as that was about the last quarter of the moon. In this view, Hurmat having learnt of the murder only in the ‑morning is of no significance. Appeal dismissed.