1969 PLP 25 (SCMR)
FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus KARAM ILAHI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 25 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus KARAM ILAHI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 25 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 25 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 25 (SCMR) (FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus KARAM ILAHI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Jafar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 11th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th December 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 1967).
Art. 58 (3) and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Acquittal of accused by High Court‑Special Leave to Appeal against acquittal refused by Supreme Court where grounds raised related merely to appreciation of evidence. Ijaz Ali, Attorney Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Jafar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Attorney for Petitioner. Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.
1. Ijaz Ali, Attorney Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing : 11th October 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The High Court has on appeal and reference set aside the conviction and sentence of deal awarded to Karam Ilahi, respondent, by the trial Judge for the murder of Mir Afsar. The learned Judges found the delay in reporting the occurrence to the police indicated that no one had seen the murder, that the presence of Baza, Muhammad Sadiq and Mst. Hakam Jan, wife of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the occurrence was doubtful and that no implicit reliance could be placed on their testimony as they: were not only related to the deceased, but were inimical to the respondent. It was further pointed out that while the post mortem examination revealed four incised injuries to the deceased, the eye‑witnesses mentioned only one hatchet blow given by the respondent to the deceased after he had fallen in a kassi. The grounds raised in support of the petition for leave to appeal go to appreciation of evidence for which we see no warrant as there is no departure from any established principle or rule of law in the appraisement of evidence by the learned Judges in the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.