1998 PLP 713 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALTAF and 6 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 713 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan, Munawar Ahmad Mirza and Abdur Rehman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALTAF and 6 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 713 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 713 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, Munawar Ahmad Mirza and Abdur Rehman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 713 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALTAF and 6 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Hussain Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 13th November, 1997.
- Ijaz Hussain Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 3‑11‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.200 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 302(b)/149, 324/149 & 148‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contentions were that the testimony of the Deputy Superintendent of Police examined as Court witness declaring the accused innocent had not been considered in its correct perspective; that the order of the Magistrate discharging the accused had been set aside without hearing them and recording any evidence; that ocular testimony found confidence inspiring in respect of the acquitted co accused could not be made basis for conviction of accused in absence of trustworthy and reliable supporting evidence particularly when the eye‑witnesses were interested witnesses and that glaring conflict in medical evidence and ocular evidence had been discarded without any valid reason‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the impact of the contentions on the merits of the case. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.
Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 3-11-1996 delivered by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, in appeal filed by petitioners against their conviction and sentence.
2. Out of the petitioners Muhammad Altaf, Farooq Altaf and Mujahid Nawaz have been awarded death sentence on one count while imprisonment for life on another count under sections 302(b) and 149, P.P.C. They also were convicted and sentenced under sections 324/149 and 148, P.P.C and have been ordered to suffer various types of imprisonment and to pay compensation. Humayun Altaf, Niaz Ahmad, Muhammad Hussain and Hakim Ali, who are petitioners Nos.4 to 7, have been convicted and sentenced under section 302(b), P.P.C to imprisonment for life etc. and also under sections 324/149 and 148, P.P.C to various terms of imprisonment. The following grounds are stressed for leave to appeal:-- (a) The testimony of C.W.1 Mian Altaf Ahmad, DSP, declaring Muhammad Altaf, Said Muhammad, Farooq Altaf and Niaz Ahmad as not guilty, has not been considered in its correct perspective as the petitioners have not extended the benefit accruing from it; (b) The order of learned Magistrate whereby the said accused/appellants were discharged, was not taken into consideration and was set aside without affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioners or recording some evidence;'' (c) The testimony of the eye-witnesses has not been found confidence inspiring in respect of the acquitted accused Muhammad Nawaz and Said Muhammad which could not be made basis for conviction of the appellants in absence of trustworthy and reliable supporting evidence; (d) The witnesses who gave ocular account were interested and without independent corroboration of their evidence it could not be made basis for a finding of guilt; (e) The conflict in medical and ocular evidence was glaring and was discarded without any valid reason. .,
3. We grant leave to appeal to consider the impact of the above points on the merits of the case.
4. There is also Criminal Miscellaneous No.81-L of 1997 wherein Hakim Ali petitioner No.7, who has been awarded imprisonment for life, has requested for bail on account of old age, ailment and admission in Surgical Ward of Mayo Hospital, Lahore since 16-12-1996. The learned counsel, however, was not in a position to indicate correct nature of the disease for which the petitioner has been admitted in the hospital. We, therefore, direct the Superintendent Jail to refer the said petitioner to Incharge Mayo Hospital, Lahore to examine him for his disease and to submit the report within a month. On receipt of the report, the bail matter of the said petitioner be fixed for hearing before the Court. N.H.Q./M-102/S Leave granted.