1969 P Cr (PLP)
AHMAD DIN AND ANOTHER‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent
| Citation | 1969 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | AHMAD DIN AND ANOTHER‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 P Cr (PLP) (AHMAD DIN AND ANOTHER‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Muzaffar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 21st June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th March 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1967/Murder Reference No. 42 of 1967). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
S. 302 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 288 & 337‑‑Approver‑ Question whether statement made by approver before committing Magistrate and transferred under S. 288 to Sessions file should be specifically put to him before that statement could be used in evidence and question whether any conviction could at all be based on evidence of approver‑Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider questions. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑
The petitioners were convicted and sentenced to death under section 302/34, P. P. C. and to seven years' R. I. under section 397/34, P. P. C. for the murder of Pir Ghulam Waris Shah and for committing robbery in the house of the said deceased respectively. The convictions and sentences were confirmed by the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore. The convictions are based on the committing Court statement of an approver which has been found to have been corroborated by some recoveries. The approver resiled during cross examination from the confessional statement made by him, his committing Court statement and what he had said in examination in‑chief. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross examined. His committing Court statement was transferred under section 288, Cr. P. C. One of the contentions raised was that the statement made by the approver before the committing Magistrate should have been specifcally put to him before that statement could be used in evidence. The learned Judges in the A High Court have found that since the statement in the committing Court had already been transferred it was evidence for all purposes without limitation. Ahmad Din filed a petition from Jail for leave a to appeal. Leave has been granted on that application to consider whether any conviction could at all be based on the evidence of the approver. The evidence against both the petitioners being the same and as leave has already been granted to Ahmad Din we also grant leave to Sakhawat Ali Shah, petitioner No.