1994 PLP 1418 (MLD)
THE STATE — Appellant Versus AZMATULLAH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1418 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THE STATE — Appellant Versus AZMATULLAH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1418 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1418 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1418 (MLD) (THE STATE — Appellant Versus AZMATULLAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.302/34, 302/109 & 337-F/34
Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act (IX of 1992), S.13(5)
No evidence was available on the record to connect the accused with the offence of. conspiracy to murder the deceased allegedly hatched by them four days prior to the occurrence
Reasons advanced by Trial Court for acquitting the accused did not call for any interference
Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR (MEMBER).
The respondents herein, namely, Azmatullah, Inamullah, Mahmood Ahmad and Muhammad Hanif, alongwith Irfanullah, were tried under sections 302/34, 302/109 and 337-F/34 (on two counts), P.P.C. by the learned Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trials No.II, Lahore. The learned Judge vide his judgment dated 13-3-1993, acquitted the respondents of the charge, whereas Irfanullah was convicted. He has challenged his conviction through a separate appeal. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents through the present appeal.
2. The learned Law Officer appearing in support of this appeal has vehemently contended that the learned trial Judge on erroneous misapplication of law as well as mis-appreciation of evidence, has acquitted the respondents which has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice.
3. We have heard the learned Law Officer at length, perused the record minutely and have gone through the reasons advanced by the learned Judge while acquitting the respondents. The allegation against the respondents is that four days prior to the occurrence, they conspired to commit the murder of Abdul Sattar alias Bawa. We find that there is no evidence on the record to A connect the respondents with the offence of conspiracy; hence the learned trial Judge rightly acquitted them and the reasons advanced by the learned Judge do not call for any interference. Resultantly, we find no force in this State appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./131/SAC Appeal dismissed.