P L D 1970 Supreme Court 56 (PLP)
Mst. SAIRAN alias SALEEMA‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1970 Supreme Court 56 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali, M. R. Khan and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SAIRAN alias SALEEMA‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1970 Supreme Court 56 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1970 Supreme Court 56 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, M. R. Khan and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1970 Supreme Court 56 (PLP) (Mst. SAIRAN alias SALEEMA‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Jafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 13th November 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 11th February 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 1968/Murder Reference No. 91 of 1968). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑--Conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone‑--Facts proved must be incompatible with innocence of accused‑Maintaining conviction by merely relying on statements made by witnesses in their examination‑in -chief without taking into consideration facts elicited by cross- examination‑High Court, held, had misread evidence causing thereby miscarriage of justice‑Benefit of doubt, in circumstance, given to accused. In the matter of conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone, the rule is that the facts proved must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. The High Court would not be right in maintaining conviction and sentence merely relying on the statements made by the witnesses in their examination‑in‑chief. Their failure to consider the evidence of each witness in its entirety and the pertinent facts elicited by cross‑examination, in fact, would amount to misreading of the evidence, and thus causing miscarriage of justice. Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, Assistant Advocate‑General, West Pakistan, instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Attorney for Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑--Conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone‑--Facts proved must be incompatible with innocence of accused‑Maintaining conviction by merely relying on statements made by witnesses in their examination‑in -chief without taking into consideration facts elicited by cross- examination‑High Court, held, had misread evidence causing thereby miscarriage of justice‑Benefit of doubt, in circumstance, given to accused. In the matter of conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone, the rule is that the facts proved must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. The High Court would not be right in maintaining conviction and sentence merely relying on the statements made by the witnesses in their examination‑in‑chief. Their failure to consider the evidence of each witness in its entirety and the pertinent facts elicited by cross‑examination, in fact, would amount to misreading of the evidence, and thus causing miscarriage of justice. Muhammad Jafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, Assistant Advocate‑General, West Pakistan, instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Attorney for Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State. Date of hearing: 13th November 1969.