1968 P Cr (PLP)
SUBEDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Fazal-e‑Akbar and Sajjad Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | SUBEDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Fazal-e‑Akbar and Sajjad Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (SUBEDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Ziaud Din Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by G. S. Gideon, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th March 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar, dated the 12th December 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1965). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑--Conviction based on ocular as well as circumstantial evidence‑--Special leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑--Conviction based on ocular as well as circumstantial evidence‑--Special leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court. Mian Ziaud Din Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by G. S. Gideon, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 29th March 1968. SAJJAD AHMED, J. The petitioner Subedar Muhammad Iqbal has been convicted under section 302, P. P. C. for the murder of Muhammad Khan, a son of his consanguine sister. The death sentence awarded to him by the trial Judge was altered to trans portation by the High Court on its finding that the deceased was suspected of carrying on an illicit affair with the wife of the petitioner when the latter was recalled to service during the war with India in September 1965. The conviction of the petitioner its based on ocular as well as circumstantial evidence which has received due consideration by the Courts below. No ground for interference whatsoever has been made out. We dismiss this petition. Leave refused.