1969 PLP 269 (SCMR)
ALAM KHAN‑Petitioner Versus GHAUNS MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 269 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALAM KHAN‑Petitioner Versus GHAUNS MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 269 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 269 (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 269 (SCMR) (ALAM KHAN‑Petitioner Versus GHAUNS MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Dilawar Mahmood Assistant Advocate‑General West Pakistan instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing: 3rd February 1969.
- Dilawai Mahmood Assistant Advocate‑General West Pakistan instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondent No. 3.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th June 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 478 of 1967/Murder Reference No. 97 of 1967). Penal Code (XMV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Conviction cannot be based on solitary testimony of approver unless corroborated by independent evidence both as to commission of crime and implication of accused therein‑Recovery of crime weapons not made in-presence of accused-has no corroborative value Criminal procedure code(V of 1898).S337
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The first 2 respondents in this case were convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, and sentenced to death for the murder of one, Muhammad Khan. The conviction was based entirely upon the evidence of an approver, who was also related to the deceased. The wife of the deceased is the real sister of the wife of the approver. The approver is also the maternal cousin of the deceased. The motive for the crime alleged was that the respondent, Ghauns Muhammad suspected the deceased of having developed illicit relations with his wife, Mst. Sultan Bibi. It is a well‑settled rule of imprudence that a conviction cannot be based upon the solitary testimony of an approver unless the same is corroborated by some other reliable independent evidence, both as to the commission of the crime and the implication of the accused therein. In the present case, it is frankly conceded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the only corroboration furnished by the prosecution is of the recoveries of the weapons. But, as pointed out by the High Court; these recoveries are of no value, for, the recoveries were not made in the presence of the respondents. The recoveries were, therefore, of no value. at Ali as a corroborative circumstance, In this view of the matter no just exception can be taken to the view of the High Court that it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the respondents on the solitary uncorroborated testimony of the approver. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.