Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 2147 2011 SLD 2147 2011 SCMR 1019
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Review Petition No. 24 of 2008, decision dated: 17-08-2009 (Against the order dated 1-4-2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2005)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., CH. IJAZ AHMED AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD RIAZ

VS

. THE STATE

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 188---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-e-amd---Review of Supreme Court ---All the grounds raised by the accused petitioners at the time of hearing of the appeal had been considered by Supreme Court, as indicated by the impugned ---Raising of new ground and arguing the same in review petition could not be allowed, as per consistent practice of Supreme Court---No case for interference in the impugned was made out---Review petition was dismissed accordingly. Muhammad Pervez and others v. The State and others 2007 SCMR 670; Lal Pasand v. The State PLD 1981 SC 142 and Riaz v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1613 ref. Muhammad Zaman Matti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Tariq, Additional, P.G. for the State. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This review petition has been filed under Article 188 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Learned counsel raised question in respect of identification of the petitioner, which is not in accord with law enunciated in the judgments of this Court reported as Muhammad Pervez and others v. The State and others (2007 SCMR 670), Lal Pasand v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 142) and Riaz v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1613). It may be noted that as far as the law laid down in the above-referred cases is concerned, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The learned Bench seized with the matter while taking into consideration this aspect of the case has accepted the identification to be true. The learned counsel then stated about the recovery of crime weapon, however, it is evident that the learned Bench had also dilated upon this aspect of the evidence. The learned counsel then argued that evidence of one case cannot be read into another case but he has failed to explain the proposition. Furthermore, this contention has never been argued before and has been raised for the first time before us, therefore, cannot be allowed to be argued. He then, contended that short order was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492