1986 PLP 1093 (SCMR)
SARDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus KHURSHID AHMAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1093 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S. 302--Leave to anneal grant of--Reappraisal of evidence--Petitioner tried under S. 302, P.P.C. given benefit of doubt and acquitted--On revision, High Court ordered retrial of case after lapse of 14 years--Plea raised that retrial was not warranted in facts and circumstances of case after lapse of inordinate delay--Reappraisal of evidence considered necessary and leave to appeal granted.--Delay-Evidence. |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | SARDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus KHURSHID AHMAD and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1093 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1093 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S. 302--Leave to anneal grant of--Reappraisal of evidence--Petitioner tried under S. 302, P.P.C. given benefit of doubt and acquitted--On revision, High Court ordered retrial of case after lapse of 14 years--Plea raised that retrial was not warranted in facts and circumstances of case after lapse of inordinate delay--Reappraisal of evidence considered necessary and leave to appeal granted.--Delay-Evidence. bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1093 (SCMR) (SARDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus KHURSHID AHMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Sarfraz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioner was tried of an offence of murder of one, Ghulam Qadir, on 6‑1‑1971 allegedly over a dispute of land situated near the house. He was tried under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of Ghulam Qadir but was acquitted of the charge by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, on 21‑9‑1971. The learned Sessions Judge, on the appreciation of evidence, came to hold that he had some lurking doubts regarding the implication of the petitioner in the crime and, therefore, the latter was entitled to benefit of doubt. On a private revision filed by the complainant Khurshid Ahmad, the learned Judge in the High Court set aside the order of the trial Court and retrial of the case was ordered. The revision which was filed in 1972 was decided as per impugned judgment on 16‑6‑1985, that is, after the lapse of a period of about 14 years. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the retrial of the case was not warranted 'in the facts and circumstances of the case and that too after such an inordinate delay. In our opinion, reappraisal of evidence seems to be necessary in this case. We would, therefore, grant leave. Further proceedings in the case shall remain stayed until the decision of the appeal. M.I. Leave granted.