| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3199 1970 SLD 3199 = 1970 PCRLJ 987 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of 1969, heard on 12th January 1970:
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, C.J., Sajjad Ahmad and M.R. Khan, JJ
M. Sleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Criminal Appeals Nos. 58 and 59 of 1969). Dr. Tassadduque Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Criminal Appeals Nos. 60 and 61 of 1969). Saeedur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for the State (in all the Appeals).
Criminal Appeals Nos, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of 1969, heard on 12th January 1970:
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, C.J., Sajjad Ahmad and M.R. Khan, JJ
M. Sleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Criminal Appeals Nos. 58 and 59 of 1969). Dr. Tassadduque Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Criminal Appeals Nos. 60 and 61 of 1969). Saeedur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for the State (in all the Appeals).
Criminal Appeals Nos, 58 and 59 of 1969 MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Appellant a
VERSUS
The STATE--Respondent Criminal appeals Nos, 60 and 61 of 1969 RAJA- Appellant Versus The STATE- Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302, 307
Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section: 45
(On appeals from the judgments and orders of the high court of west Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 21st December 1967, in criminal appeals Nos, 458, 459 and 784 of 1966). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Witness-Evidence Prosecution witness (a police constable) shown to have been named in a complaint filed by accused prior to incident-Nevertheless witness not treated as -inimical inasmuch as he had not been summoned as accused in that case. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.-Prosecution witness-- Fact that witness was involved in another criminal case and had been bailed out in that case just at time of occurrence-Contention that witness, in circumstance, was under influence of police-Held had no force. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 45-Ballistic Expert, opinion of--Expert firing only one test bullet from crime weapon and opining after microscopic comparison of test bullet with crime-bullet-- Opinion even formed on basis of one test alone cannot be ruled out as of no value-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. Major Sir Gerald Burrard on The Identification of Firearms and Forensic Ballistics considered. (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 45-Ballistic Expert on microscopic examination finding similarities between crime empty and test empty on as many as ten counts-Mere fact that no photographs were taken by him of either-Held: of no significance-- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. Major Sir Gerald Burrard on The Identification' of Firearms and Forensic Ballistics considered. (e) Witness-Evidence -Crime weapon-Pistol and revolver; similar in size and difference can be ascertained only after examina tion of weapon-Fact that prosecution witness stated shot to have been fired from a pistol although weapon used was in fact a revolver --Discrepancy of witness regarding nature of weapon-Of no signifi cance-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. (f) Sentence -Capital sentence-Mitigation-Mere fact that sentence of death had been passed 3z years ago and all along, during pendency of appeal, convict had suffered from agony of death sentence-Held: no ground for commutation if sentence passed, a legal one-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.…