SCMR 2007

2007 PLP 1386 (SCMR)

THE STATE through A.-G. N.-W.F.P. — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petitions Nos.109-P, 120-P and 249 of 2003, decided on 7th May, 2007.
Honorable Judges
Rana Bhagwandas, Actg. C.J., Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 1386 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Rana Bhagwandas, Actg. C.J., Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ
Parties THE STATE through A.-G. N.-W.F.P. — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and others — Respondents
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1386 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1386 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Actg. C.J., Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1386 (SCMR) (THE STATE through A.-G. N.-W.F.P. — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petitions Nos.109-P and 120-P of 2003).
  • Nemo for Respondents (in Criminal Petitions Nos.109-P and 120-P of 2003).
  • Dr. Babar Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No.249 of 2003).
  • Nemo for Respondents (in Criminal Petition No.249 of 2003).
  • 2. We have heard Dr. Babar Awan and Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of these petitions who have vehemently contended that this was a daylight occurrence promptly reported with local police; that eye-witness account did not suffer from any legal disability; that the High Court wrongly substituted opinion of the medical expert by its own; that respondents remained proclaimed offenders for over a month and that there was no good reason for substitution of the respondents for real culprits.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 302, 324 & 148

Constitution of Pakistan '(1973), Art.185(3)

Leave to appeal was granted to State in order to ascertain whether the principles for appraisal of evidence laid down by Supreme Court for safe administration of criminal justice ,system were fully adhered to and whether reasons recorded by High Court could be sustained at law for reversing a judgment of conviction into acquittal.

Judgment & Decree

RANA BHAGWANDAS ACTG. C.J.

These petitions are directed against identical judgment of Peshawar High Court, dated 3-6-2003 accepting respondents' appeal against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment on the charge of Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Muhammad Ishaq committed on or about 5-6-1999 at about 3-40 p.m. Respondents were also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced to 4 years' R.I. They were convicted under sec ion 148, P.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. It may be observed that one of the assailants remains to be fugitive from law and a proclaimed offender.

2. We have heard Dr. Babar Awan and Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of these petitions who have vehemently contended that this was a daylight occurrence promptly reported with local police; that eye-witness account did not suffer from any legal disability; that the High Court wrongly substituted opinion of the medical expert by its own; that respondents remained proclaimed offenders for over a month and that there was no good reason for substitution of the respondents for real culprits.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and upon tentative assessment of record, we are inclined to grant leave in order to ascertain whether the principles of appraisal of evidence laid down by this Court for safe administration of criminal justice system were fully adhered to and whether reasons recorded by the High Court can be sustained at law for reversing a judgment of conviction into acquittal. Order accordingly.

4. Bailable warrants shall issue against the, respondents in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 returnable to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. N.H.Q./S-27/SC Leave granted.