2011 SCMR 1349 (PLP)
SALEEM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1349 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tariq Parvez, Mian Saqib Nisar, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan and Dr. Muhammad Al-Ghazali, JJ |
| Parties | SALEEM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1349 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1349 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tariq Parvez, Mian Saqib Nisar, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan and Dr. Muhammad Al-Ghazali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1349 (PLP) (SALEEM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12-2-2009 passed by the Federal Shariat Court in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 74/K of 2006).
Arts. 22 & 74
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 203-F(2B)-Identification of accused
Death of Investigating Officer
Plea raised by accused was that Magistrate under whose supervision Test Identification Parade was held was not produced and even during trial accused persons were not identified--Accused raised the further plea that person who conducted entire investigation was reportedly dead and documents prepared by him were not proved through secondary evidence
Effect
Leave to appeal was granted for reappraisal of entire evidence. Saleem Akhtar, Additional P.-G., Sindh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ PARVEZ, CHAIRMAN.
Inter alia, states that there is no ocular account in this case except circumstantial evidence consisting mainly of identification parade.
2. States that the Magistrate under whose supervision T.I.P. (Test Identification Parade) was held was not produced; that even during the trial the accused assailants were not identified; that no description of alleged assailants was given in F.I.R. and; that the person who conducted the entire investigation was reportedly dead and the documents prepared by him were not proved through secondary evidence. To consider the above submissions, we grant leave to appeal in this petition for reappraisal of the entire evidence. M.H./S-26/SC Leave granted.