1987 PLP 179 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 179 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Motive‑‑Corroboration of ocular testimony‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that motive alone could not have been used as corroboration of ocular testimony for maintaining conviction of accused petitioner.‑‑Motive. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 179 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 179 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Motive‑‑Corroboration of ocular testimony‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that motive alone could not have been used as corroboration of ocular testimony for maintaining conviction of accused petitioner.‑‑Motive. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 179 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Zafar, Advocate and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 1986.
- Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑9‑1983, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1980(BWP).) (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Conviction‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Acquittal of co‑accused‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that there was hardly any distinction between case of acquitted accused and petitioner. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Motive‑‑Corroboration of ocular testimony‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that motive alone could not have been used as corroboration of ocular testimony for maintaining conviction of accused petitioner.‑‑[Motive]. Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Motive‑‑Corroboration of ocular testimony‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that motive alone could not have been used as corroboration of ocular testimony for maintaining conviction of accused petitioner.‑‑[Motive]. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Zafar, Advocate and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 6th December, 1986. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Muhammad Ashraf petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court in a case under section 302, P.P.C.
2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was tried alongwith 9 others for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz. The trial Court convicted Muhammad Ashraf petitioner and Muhammad Nawaz co‑accused and acquitted the remaining 8 co‑accused. Both the convicts‑accused filed a joint appeal before the High Court. The same was dismissed with regard to Muhammad Ashraf petitioner but accepted qua Muhammad Nawaz co‑accused and he was acquitted. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has taken us to the impugned judgment and pointed out that there is hardly any distinction between the case of the acquitted co‑accused and that of the petitioner, as the only reason on which his conviction has been maintained is that he is stated to have had the motive for the offence which has been treated by the learned High Court as corroboration of the testimony of the eye‑witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that motive alone could not have been used as corroboration of the ocular testimony for maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner. 4.The matter needs consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted to him on the above‑noted point. M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.