Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 24 and 7 of 1968, decided on 24th June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 22nd November 1967 in Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1966).
S. 302/149‑Acquittal of accused on their appeal to High Court Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against acquittal‑Contention that evidence of eye‑witnesses had been disbelieved and their presence doubted by High Court on basis of inadmissible evidence and further that statement made before Police had been treated as substantive evidence to discard evidence of eye‑witnesses‑Leave granted by Supreme Court.
Dilawar Mahmood and Saeed‑ur‑Rahman Khan, Advocates Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
AND
S. M. Almas Ali, Advocate Supreme Court 'instructed by Kh. Wali Muhammad, Senior Attorney Supreme Court (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney Supreme Court for Respondent No. 7.
Date of hearing : 24th June 1968.
‑This petition for leave to appeal by the State is directed against an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, acquitting the respondents of the charges under section 302/149 and section 148, P. P. C. The respondents were tried for the murders of Shah Muhammad alias Shahu and his two sons, Salabati and Mohabati, and each of them was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha. They were also convicted under section 148, P. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to one year's R. I. which sentence was to take effect if death sentences were not confirmed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses who furnished ocular evidence has been disbelieved and their presence doubted on the basis of some inadmissible evidence. Our attention is drawn in this connection to the observations of the learned Judges, for rejecting the evidence of Shahadat, P. W. His evidence has been discarded merely because Muhammad Ashraf, another witness, in his statement before the police, did not mention that Shahadat was present when he arrived at the place of occurrence. It is then contended that the entire statement of Raja Muhammad Ashraf, P. W. made before the police, has been used as substantive evidence to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses. The learned counsel has pointed out that the com plainant in his evidence explained the cause of delay in lodging the F. I. R. but that has been rejected as an after thought since this was not mentioned in the F. I. R.
The points raised deserve consideration. We accordingly grant leave for re‑examining the evidence. Non‑bailable warrants will issue for the arrest of the respondents. In view of our order, passed on this petition, no order need be passed on the petition filed by Ali, the complainant. (Criminal Petition No. 7 of 1968).
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer