1969 PLP 132 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 132 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 132 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 132 (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 132 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasim Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Senior Attorney for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 18th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 26th June 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 1968).
S. 302‑Number of accused‑One acquitted on basis of alibi evidence and another because his participation was found doubtful on account of advanced age‑ Contention that prosecution evidence not worthy of credit on principle that witness found false in part shall be disbelieved in whole‑Held not applicable in such a case. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 302‑Number of accused‑One acquitted on basis of alibi evidence and another because his participation was found doubtful on account of advanced age‑ Contention that prosecution evidence not worthy of credit on principle that witness found false in part shall be disbelieved in whole‑Held not applicable in such a case. Nasim Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Senior Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 18th October 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The High Court has on appeal maintained the convictions and respective sentences of the petitioners under sections 148 and 326/149, P. P. C. for rioting and in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly cutting both hands of Usman. P. W., with the use of daggers. Leave to appeal is asked for on grounds which go to appreciation of evidence. Muhammad Hayat and Jiwan who were tried along with the petitioners were acquitted, the former on the basis of alibi evidence and the later on the view that as he was 70 years of age his participation was doubtful. Learned counsel urged that as Usman and other P. Ws., had implicated two innocent persons their evidence as a whole was not worthy of credit. There is little substance in the contention as the principle that a witness found to be false in part shall be disbelieved in whole has been held to be inapplicable in such cases. It was next contended that the learned Judge in the High Court had misread the evidence in holding that Noora, P. W., was not related to Usman. The error, however, is not material as the relationship admitted by Usman was not very close. Lastly it was said that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution version that daggers were used in cutting the hands of Usman. The opinion given by the doctor was that sharp‑edged weapons were used, but in reply to the question put by Court he conceded that "amputation is possible through a heavy sharp‑edged weapon". We thus see no conflict between the version given by Usman and the medical evidence. The petition has little substance and we dismiss it. Leave refused.