1968P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. Islam, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Mushtaq Ahmad Khawaja, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Tassaduq Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Sardar Ahmad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E‑AKBAR, J.‑--This order relates to four criminal petitions for special leave to appeal, viz. Nos. 34, 35, 45 and 46 of 1968. The petitioners Muhammad Aslam and Raja were tried along with two others, for offences under sections 302/34, 333/34 and 353/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1966. He convicted Muhammad Aslam under section 302, P. P. C. and sentenced him to death and acquitted the others. On appeal and reference, the learned Judges of the High Court confirmed the sentence of Muhammad Aslam. They also accepted the appeal filed by the State against acquittal of Raja and convicted him under section 307, P. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The convictions and sentences of these two petitioners under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, were also affirmed by the High Court. Aslam has filed Petitions Nos. 34 and 35, and Raja has filed Petitions Nos. 45 and
46. It was contended, inter alia (i) that the evidence of the eye‑witnesses Miskeen P. W. 19 and Ali Akhtar Patwari P. W. 18, has not been fully considered by the High Court; (ii) that the High Court was not justified in treating Mehdi Khan as a disinterested witness; (iii) that the evidence of recovery which had been used as furnishing corroboration of the evidence of two eye‑witnesses, is not free from doubt because, according to the witnesses, the revolver recovered from Aslam had no empty shells in its chamber, whereas the revolver that was received by the Fire‑arms Expert, had two empty shells in its chamber; and (iv) that the evidence of alibi led on behalf of Raja was not noticed by the High Court. Some of the above contentions do not appear to be without substance. We think, for the safe administration of Justice, the t evidence in these cases should be re‑examined. We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed, in all these four petitions. Leave granted.