Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 728 1992 SLD 728 1992 SCMR 1602
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1991, decision dated: 12-04-1992(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 25-9-1990 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in Criminal Appeal No:26 of 1988 and M.R. No.53 of 1988)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, 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 SALEEM

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Witness---- Interested witness---Depending upon facts of a case interested witness might not be believed unless materially corroborated from other facts and circumstances of the case. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--S.302---Appreciation of evidence---Trial Court as well as the High Court, on proper appraisal of the evidence of eye-witnesses, had believed their presence at the time of occurrence and such being a decision on facts was not open to challenge before Supreme Court as no illegality was found in the conclusions arrived at by the lower two forums---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances. Niaz v. State PLD 1960 SC 387 ref. JUDGMENT WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammad Saleem convict/appellant, through leave of the Court on jail petition, has called in question his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. or in default one year R.I., for having committed the murder of Jalal min, his step uncle, passed by the, Lahore High Court vide order dated 25-9-1990. The leave granting order is as follows:-- The enmity between the parties was found established by the High Court. It was of such a nature that the petitioner had to sell his land and leave the village to settle elsewhere. Further, the High Court held `the evidence as to motive is doubtful and the prosecution having made an effort to set it up failed to substantiate it and, therefore, it must suffer'. The trial Court found the recovery evidence discrepant but believed it. The High Court did not reject it but at the same time did not rely on its corroborative value and proceeded to consider the case to be one of those exceptional cases where in spite of such enmity and the witnesses being interested no need for further corroboration existed. Such a 'view of the law requires examination for which it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal." The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 7-11-1986 at 6.00 a.m.. Abdul Sattar complainant PW-10 was proceeding towards his cotton field to ease himself while the deceased Jalal Din and the appellant Muhammad Saleem were going ahead of him at some distance. Farzand Ali PW-11 and…
🔒
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