1969 P Cr (PLP)
JAM‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | JAM‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 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: 1969 P Cr (PLP) (JAM‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iftikharul Hag Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing :15th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 11th June 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 1967). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
S. 302‑Accused convicted for strangulating his wife‑Contention that one of prosecution witnesses being a convict should not have been believed‑Question, one relating to appreciation of evidence‑Special leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
S. 302‑Accused convicted for strangulating his wife‑Contention that one of prosecution witnesses being a convict should not have been believed‑Question, one relating to appreciation of evidence‑Special leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court. Iftikharul Hag Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing :15th October 1968. ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The petitioner was convicted under section 302, P. P. C. and sentenced to death for the murder of his wife Mst. Sakina on the 30th December 1966 at about 8‑30 p.m. The conviction is based on the ocular evidence furnished by Muhammad Ali (P. W 7), Amir (P. W. 8), Noor Hassan (P. W. 9) and Khadim Ali (P. W. 10). They went near the house of the appellant, heard a noise from inside and found the door of the kotha chained from inside. They broke open the door and found the appellant sitting on the chest of the deceased and strangulating her with a chadar. The appellant was pulled away but the deceased had died already. The appellant confessed his guilt to them. The above evidence has been believed by the Courts below. The argument that the evidence is improbable and is unworthy of credence does not impress us. It has also been argued that Amir being a convict should not have been believed. These are questions relating to appreciation of evidence. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.