1991 PLP 60 (SCMR)
GHULAM MEHDI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 60 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MEHDI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 60 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 60 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 60 (SCMR) (GHULAM MEHDI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 28th May, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 16‑5‑1990 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Criminal Misc. No.70‑B of 1990). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Complainant and injured witness had implicated accused who was armed with a gun‑‑‑In the presence of direct evidence much weight could not be attached to opinion of Ballistic Expert‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Yaqoob v. State PLD 1976 SC 53 rel. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner has moved this petition for grant of bail. The facts, in brief, are that on 29‑7‑1989 it was alleged that the petitioner alongwith his co‑accused attacked the deceased and injured Nazir Hussain P.W. The petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun and the co‑accused Abbas was also armed with .12 bore gun. A shot was fired by the petitioner which hit Muhammad Shabbir on his left shoulder and the second shot hit P.W. Nazir on left arm. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the empties recovered from the place of Wardat matched with the gun recovered from the co -accused Abbas, therefore, the petitioner is innocent and at least it is a case of further inquiry. This contention has no force. The complainant and the injured have implicated the present petitioner. He was armed with a .12 bore gun. As regards the opinion of the expert, in the presence of direct evidence, much weight cannot be attached to such opinion. This Court has already held such view in Yaqoob v. State PLD 1976 SC 53, wherein it was observed as hereunder:‑‑ " It is well‑established that expert evidence, may it be medical or that of a Ballistic Expert is entirely in the nature of confirmatory or explanatory of direct or other circumstantial evidence. But if there is direct evidence as in the instant case which is definite, forthright and at the same time creditworthy, confirmatory, evidence is not of much significance. It cannot, at any rate, outweigh the direct evidence unless it is for any reason deficient in quality." This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./G‑304/S Leave refused.