1989 PLP 2839 (MLD)
THE STATE — Appellant Versus MUNIR AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2839 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar and Riaz Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE — Appellant Versus MUNIR AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | ---S. 417--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Appeal against acquittal--Counsel ror the appellant was not able to show as to how the opinion formed by the Trial Court could be taken to have been formed on any extraneous matters or facts, nor he could point out as to how the appreciation of evidence made by the Trial Judge could be said to be wrong appreciation of evidence--No case for interference in the judgment of acquittal made out, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2839 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: ---S. 417--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Appeal against acquittal--Counsel ror the appellant was not able to show as to how the opinion formed by the Trial Court could be taken to have been formed on any extraneous matters or facts, nor he could point out as to how the appreciation of evidence made by the Trial Judge could be said to be wrong appreciation of evidence--No case for interference in the judgment of acquittal made out, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2839 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar and Riaz Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2839 (MLD) (THE STATE — Appellant Versus MUNIR AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Javid Shaukat for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Appeal dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
3. The police during investigation did not arrest the persons named in the F.I.R. The respondent was arrested and challaned for having murdered the deceased.
4. At the trial apart from the recovery evidence the prosecution produced P.W.6 in support of the fact that the respondent had made confession before him and one Haji Muhammad Iqbal, 3/4 days after the murder. Malik Muhammad Yar Khokhar, M.I.C. (P.W.7) was produced in support of the prosecution case that the respondent had made a judicial confession before him by making statement on 11-1-1984.
5. The respondent during trial denied the prosecution case as a whole and took up the plea of innocence. His stance was that he had been taken into custody by the police on the very first day and the evidence of extra-judicial confession as well as judicial confession was concocted and obtained by using pressure and torture.
6. At the trial PWA Asghar Ali, who had escorted dead body to the mortuary from the spot during cross-examination admitted that Munir (respondent) had been arrested and taken to the police station on the same day as an accused. The fact of the respondent being with the police on the first day was also admitted by P.W.6, Ch. Muhammad Aslam, during cross-examination, who stated that when he had visited the spot, Munir was sitting there alongwith other persons. The learned trial Judge on the basis of this evidence came to the conclusion that the statement made by Ch. Muhammad Aslam (P.W.6) of the respondent having appeared before him 3/4 days after the occurrence and of having made confession appeared incorrect. It was again on this basis that the learned trial Judge did not believe the evidence of judicial confession because the stance of the prosecution that the respondent had been arrested on 10-1-1984, stood disproved.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show us as to how the opinion formed by the learned trial Judge can be taken to have been formed on any extraneous matters or facts, nor he has been able to point out as to how the appreciation of evidence done by the trial Judge can be addressed to be wrong appreciation of evidence.
8. The evidence of the alleged recovery at the instance of the respondent was also disbelieved for sufficient reasons. But even if that be disregarded, no conviction could have been based on the basis of extra judicial confession and the judicial confession, as held by the learned trial Judge.
9. For all the reasons mentioned above, no case for interference in the judgment of acquittal is made out. The appeal is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./S-440/L. Appeal dismissed.