1989 PLP 1189 (SCMR)
ABBAS ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SABIR alias SABRI and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1189 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ABBAS ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SABIR alias SABRI and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1189 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1189 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1189 (SCMR) (ABBAS ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SABIR alias SABRI and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Samar Hussain, Advocate and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
- M.Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General and Rao M.Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 19th November, 1985 m Crl. Appeal No.672 of 1983). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.302/34‑‑Acquittal‑‑No misreading by High Court on any substantial point found‑‑Appraisal of evidence by High Court had not resulted in miscarriage of justice‑‑Conditions laid down by Supreme Court for setting aside a judgment of acquittal in murder case were not satisfied‑‑Technical ground regarding cross -examination of two won‑over witnesses would not advance the case against acquittal as even any further cross‑examination would not change their position to any higher level than that of dishonest witnesses; in case it was held in the circumstances that said witnesses; tried to support one side at certain stage of the case and volta face changed their position at another stage so as to help the other party.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the acceptance by the High Court, of a criminal appeal filed by respondents Nos.l and
2. They were earlier tried for the murder of Muhammad Ali, a brother of the petitioner, and were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. Each of them was awarded sentences of life imprisonment and fine. The High Court on appeal acquitted them by extension of benefit of doubt. Leave to appeal has been sought against the said acquittal. Learned counsel has referred to the relevant parts of the evidence and has tried to show that the two eye‑witnesses; namely, Mushtaq Ali and Barkat, who had resiled at the trial stage were in reality won over witnesses. He has also contended that the trial Court did not permit due cross‑examination of the said witnesses. If that would have been allowed, he further contended, it would have been shown that they did witness the occurrence and further that they did not tell the truth at the trial. He has also contended that the presence of Abbas Ali petitioner could not have been doubted. That being so, his testimony together with other supporting evidence, could have been sufficient for maintaining the conviction. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that there is no misreading by the High Court on any substantial point. Nor in the circumstances, there is such appraisal of evidence by the High Court which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In other words the case does not satisfy the conditions laid down by this Court for setting aside a judgment of acquittal m murder cases. The technical ground raised by the learned counsel regarding cross‑examination on two won over witnesses would not advance the case of the petitioner as even any further cross‑examination would not change their position to any higher level than that of dishonest witnesses‑‑in case it is held in the circumstances of this case that they tried to support one side at certain stage of a criminal case and volt‑a face changed their position at another stage so as to help the other party. Looked at from whatever angle, no case has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The same, accordingly, is refused. M.BA./A‑452/S Leave refused.