1990 PLP 576 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 576 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 576 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 576 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 576 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Ayub Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No.2‑R/89).
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manroor Elahi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Cr. P No.l7‑R/89).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 28‑11‑1988 in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1985). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Obviously a material contradiction existed in ocular version and medical evidence which aspect was not properly appreciated by High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the said aspect. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Petition for enhancement of sentence was barred by 43 days‑‑‑Petition not only merited dismissal on ground of limitation, but was also devoid of any merit and was thus dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Muhammad Ayub Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No.2‑R/89). Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manroor Elahi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Cr. P No.l7‑R/89). Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions). Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Two separate petitions (Cr.P.2‑R/89 and 1 17‑‑R/89) for special leave to appeal have been filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawlapindi Bench dated 28‑11‑1988. In the former the petitioner wants the impugned judgment to be set aside and he be acquitted of the murder charge. The latter is by the complainant who lodged report with regard to the murder of his brother Zafar lqbal which took place on 8‑8‑1984 after Maghrab prayer in the area of village Majhia, tehsil Fatch Jang, District Attock. He is aggrieved by the judgment to the extent that the High Court erred in law in commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life. He, therefore, wants the same to be enhanced. We have heard learned counsel in both the petitions. In the case of Muhammad Nawaz, learned counsel submitted that the medical evidence belied the ocular version; hence there was no sufficient evidence in law to maintain the conviction of the petitioner. In this sequence he drew our attention to the post‑mortem report of the deceased where the doctor who performed autopsy found 21 pieces of pellets beneath injuries Nos. 2, 6, 8 and were handed over to the police in a sealed bottle. It was submitted that the weapon alleged to have been used by the petitioner was pistol. It is thus obvious that there was a material contradiction in the ocular version and the medical evidence. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the High Court. The contention is not devoid of force. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal to examine the aforesaid aspect. So far as the other petition is concerned, this is barred by 443 days. It merits dismissal on this ground alone. Nevertheless, we are of the view that even, otherwise, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1180/S Order accordingly.