1983 PLP 1019 (SCMR)
DILDAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1019 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | DILDAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1019 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1019 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1019 (SCMR) (DILDAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th February, 1983.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, in Cr. A. 154/82, dated 31st October, 1982).
Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307 & 325 Attempt to murder-Appeal against connection-High Court found to have attended to all circumstances considered vital from defence point of view-Appreciation of evidence including question of delay in F. I. R. found in accordance with accepted principles of criminal justice-Leave to Appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 31‑10‑1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a, criminal appeal was only partly allowed. Petitioner was convicted under section 307, P. P. C. for causing injuries to Muhammad Hussain, P. W. a boy of 16/17 years of age, with a knife 'and a‑ Sota. Nazir and Sabir, P. Ws. besides Muhammad Hussain had furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. Muhammad `Hussain also gave the motive that the petitioner retaliated because he the injured, had rebutted his overtures for an illicit connection. There was also the recovery of Crime The defence plea was of false implication because the younger brother of the petitioner bad earlier administered a beating to Muhammad Humain for his "irresponsible behavior towards and involving , the honour of their womenfolk. The trial Court as also a learned single Judge in the High Court relying on the prosecution evidence found the petitioner guilty. The High Court, however, held that the offence. was one under‑ section 325 P. P. C. and Not under section 307 as found by the trial Court, accordingly the sentence was educed in appeal. Learned counsel has questioned the, findings regarding motive dis interestedness of the eye‑witnesses and non-production of more reliable evidence regarding recovery. He has also criticised the complainant side's `conduct in reporting the matter to the police after a long delay. The learned single Judge in the High Court attended to all the circum stances which could be considered vital from the point of view of defence. The appreciation of evidence including‑the consideration of question of. Delay in F. I. R. are in accordance with accepted principles of criminal justice. We have not been able to differ with the same not even With regard to the sentence the last point urged by the learned counsel. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. S. Q. Leave refused.