1968 P Cr (PLP)
MIRZA ALI-Petitioner Versus THE STATE- Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | MIRZA ALI-Petitioner Versus THE STATE- Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (MIRZA ALI-Petitioner Versus THE STATE- Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Qayyum Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mian Muhammad Younis Shah Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by G.S Gideon Attorney for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated 18-8-1967, in, Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 1966). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
S. 302-High Court after careful examination accepting ocular evidence and relying on dying declaration-Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD.
Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the High Court has erred in accepting the testimony of the eye-witnesses P. Ws. Farang Khan and Sharbat, brother and son of the deceased respectively, who had been disbelieved by the trial Judge--and that the dying declaration of the deceased which has been accepted both by the trial Judge and the High Court was not a genuine document. We are not inclined to re-assess the ocular evidence which the High Court has carefully examined and accepted on very good grounds in disagreement with the trial Judge. It was a day-light murder, and the deceased injuries survived for sometime charged the petitioner as his single assailant, whose could not have been missed by him and whose substitution for the real culprit by the deceased is beyond comprehension, we decline to interfere. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.