Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1989 SCMR 1980

HAKIM JALAL KHAN vs HAMID AUGUSTIN and others

Citation1989 SCMR 1980
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No,26 of 1988
Date1989-04-17
Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Dr. Javed Iqbal, Saad Saood Jan
ResultPetition dismissed

1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Hakim Jalal Khan son of Budhay Khan, Christian, resident of House No,609- A, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad, filed petition for special leave to appeal in the Lahore High Court against the order, dated 6-11-1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby respondents 1 to 3 and one Anthony Javaid were acquitted of the murder charge.

2. ' The High Court by means of the impugned order admitted the petition only with regard to Anthony Javaid accused. Regarding the rest the petition was dismissed. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid order, his grievance being that the High Court ought to have admitted the petition against all.

3. ' In support of this learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is overwhelming evidence to connect all the four accused with the alleged murder of Mst. Gladius which took place on 20-7- 1983 at 8-00 p.m. In Chak No,51/GB, Police Station Samundari District Faisalabad.

4. ' Learned counsel contended that neither the Additional Sessions Judge nor the High Court properly considered the evidence. Learned counsel tried to argue that the trial was not conducted in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Noor Elahi v. The State etc. PLD 1966 SC 708.

5. We don't find any force in any one of these submissions because the learned High Court after examining the evidence found that there was no prima facie case against the respondents.

6. ' We are not inclined to re-appraise the evidence. That has been done by the High Court. Similarly we don't think that the trial stood vitiated for noncompliance of the dictum laid down in the above- referred case.

7. ' The trial being in accordance with law and the High Court having properly considered the evidence the impugned order, as such, calls for no interference.

8. ' Dismissed.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch