1968 PLP 1341 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALI AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1341 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1341 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1341 (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: 1968 PLP 1341 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALI AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Hamiduddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 27th June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th February 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 1966).
S. 302‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court against conviction‑Contention that eye‑witnesses interested and not supported by independent evidence- Question one of mere appreciation of evidence‑Leave refused -Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3). Nemo for the State. ORDER ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal is from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, by which the convictions and sentences of transportation for life under section 302/34, P. P. C. of the petitioners were confirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the witnesses who have furnished ocular evidence are interested witnesses and therefore in the absence of any corroboration by an independent source the same could not form the basis of the convictions. The question raised is merely one of appreciation of evidence and cannot be agitated in this Court in view of the findings arrived at by the Courts below accepting the evidence of the eye‑witnesses. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal is from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, by which the convictions and sentences of transportation for life under section 302/34, P. P. C. of the petitioners were confirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the witnesses who have furnished ocular evidence are interested witnesses and therefore in the absence of any corroboration by an independent source the same could not form the basis of the convictions. The question raised is merely one of appreciation of evidence and cannot be agitated in this Court in view of the findings arrived at by the Courts below accepting the evidence of the eye‑witnesses. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.