Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 161 1982 SLD 161 1982 SCMR 115
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1977, decision dated: 25-08-1980.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 6-2-1975 in Criminal Appeal No. 671 of 1975)
DORAB PATEL, ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH AND FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, JJ
S. M. Almas Ali, Advocate and Sh. A. Karim, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants. Raja Muhammad Bashir, Advocate for Advocate General (Punjab) for the State. Ch. Abdul Rehman, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 2

MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND another

VS

THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S. 302-Benefit of doubt--Ocular testimony tainted by enmity and unreliable and not acceptable without corroboration-Plea of alibi found correct-Recoveries not of corroborative value Prosecution, held, failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and rightly acquitted by lower Court.-[Benefit of doubt]. JUDGMENT DORAB PATEL, J.-The private respondents in .the appeal, to whom we will refer as the respondents were tried with two other accused, Ibrahim and his son Muhammad by the Section 30, Magistrate, Shakargarh, Sialkot District, under section 307/34, P. P. C. for firing at the appellants. Ibrahim died during the pendency of the case and by his judgment dated 30-6-1965, the learned Magistrate acquitted his son Muhammad, but he convicted the respondents under section 307134, P. P. C. and sentenced them to seven years' R. I. each. Fines were also imposed. The respondents challenged their conviction to an appeal in the Lahore High Court, which was heard with the revision filed by the appellants for the enhancement of the sentence passed against the respondents. By his judgment dated, 6-2-1976, the learned Judge dismissed the revision of the appellants and allowed the appeal of the respondents. As the conviction of the respondents was set aside the appellants filed a petition for leave in this Court and leave was granted in order to examine the question "whether the testimony of the eye-witnesses was not sufficiently corro­borated". The appeal was, therefore heard by us on the 28th of June, 1980, and after considerable arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants and for the respondents asked for further time to prepare arguments, there­fore, the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 2nd July, 1980. But, on the 2nd July, 1980. Mr. Almas Ali again sought on adjournment and as this request was opposed by his client (the first appellant), we concluded arguments with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State, who supported the plea of the appellants. The occurrence took place in village Mandikhel on 26-9-1971. One Abdul Rauf owns a house in this village, but he was not living in the village and had given possession…
🔒
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