1987 PLP 456 (SCMR)
GHULAM MURTAZA alias BHOPAL and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 456 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MURTAZA alias BHOPAL and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 456 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 456 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 456 (SCMR) (GHULAM MURTAZA alias BHOPAL and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 309 of 1984).
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Bar‑at‑Law ,Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 316 of 1984).
- Rana Abdul Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 304 of 1984).
- Date of hearing: 10th January, 1987.
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 304 of 1984).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 9‑8‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 1979). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Safe dispensation of justice‑‑Involvement of a large number of persons and acquittal at different stages‑‑Medical evidence inconsistent with shots alleged to have been fired‑‑Leave to appeal granted for reconsideration of entire material for safe dispensation of justice. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Safe dispensation of justice‑‑Petition against acquittal and for enhancement of sentence‑‑Involvement of a large number of persons and acquittal at different stages‑‑Accused driver who was implicated in crime subsequently, was convicted by Trial Court but acquitted by High Court‑‑Order impugned‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider reasons of acquittal of accused‑driver, particularly because main prosecution witness who implicated him, was believed in other respects but disbelieved qua his implication of accused ‑driver‑‑Bailable warrants issued against acquitted accused. Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 304 of 1984). Nemo for the State (in Criminal Petitions Nos. 309 and 316 of 1984).
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑The first four petitions are against the convictions while the fifth petition is against the acquittal of Shaukat, the driver of the jeep and for the enhancement of the sentences passed on those convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. As a matter of first impression, after referring to the record, we find features in the evidence which require reconsideration of the entire material for safe dispensation of justice. There is involvement oft a large number of persons and acquittal at different stages. The medical evidence is also not consistent with the shots alleged to have been fired on the two deceased. Shaukat Ali, who was a driver of the Jeep, was subsequently implicated in the crime on the evidence of Saifullah and others although convicted by the trial Court he was acquitted by the High Court. The reasons for his acquittal also need consideration amongst others on the ground that although Saifullah who was the star witness has been believed in other respects. he has been disbelieved qua his implication. Accordingly, we would grant leave to appeal to the petitioners in all these petitions. Bailable warrants against Shaukat to issue in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Okara. M.I./4428/S Leave granted.