1990 PLP 281 (SCMR)
ATTA HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 281 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | ATTA HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 281 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 281 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal 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 281 (SCMR) (ATTA HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 25th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23‑2‑1988 in Criminal Appeal 35 of 1986 and M. R. 8 of 1986). ‑‑‑S.302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ High Court modified sentence of accused due to some conflict between ocular account and post‑mortem report‑‑‑Contention that the same was not a minor contradiction but falsified entire prosecution case making accused entitled to acquittal needed examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 25th September, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Atta Hussain and Fida Hussain real brothers and Manzoor Bakhsh son of Elahi Bakhsh seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23‑2‑1989 whereby their appeal against their conviction was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that he does not want appraisal of evidence but there is an error patent in the judgment of the High Court which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that according to the post‑mortem report the deceased had one incised wound 3" X 1/2" X bone deep on left side of the head but the High Court observed, "
As regards the sentence we find scope for its modification because according to the prosecution Atta Hussain and Hazoor Bakhsh had both given Kassi injuries on the head of the deceased resulting in his death but in the post‑mortem examination report only one incised wound was found on the head of the deceased which was dangerous in nature." Learned counsel submitted that it is not a minor contradiction but it falsifies the entire prosecution case with the result the petitioners were entitled to its benefit in the form of acquittal, which the High Court denied without any legal justification. The contention is not devoid of force. The matter needs examination. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. N.H.Q./A‑651/S Leave granted.