This view was endorsed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Meharban Shah v. The State — 1969 SCMR 839

Citation: 1969 SCMR 839

Court: Lahore High Court

Year: 1971

Decision Date: 1971-11-01

Parties: MUHAMMAD DIN vs HAIDER And 7 OTHERS

Headnotes

Where in a similar case it was observed as under:- "It was not open to the learned Judge, after having rejected the prosecution evidence as unreliable to dissect the accused---s statement and accept it in part and reject the rest of it in these circumstances. It seems to us that this became really a case of no evidence and the conviction of the appellant, therefore, cannot be sustained, in the face of the finding that the three eye-witnesses in the case put forward by the prosecution had not told the truth on material points and were, therefore, not worthy of credence.

Judgment Text

Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Cheema Title: MUHAMMAD DIN vs HAIDER And 7 OTHERS Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 845 of 1965 Date of Judgment:1971-11-01 Reported As: 1972 P Cr. L J 664 Result: Revision allowed JUDGMENT JUDGMENT This is a private revision against Judgment of acquittal, recorded on the 29th of July 1965, in favour of the respondents by Haji Mohammad Khan, Additional Sessions Jundge, Sialkot, since retired. 2. The occurrence took place at digarwela on the 1st of August 1964 in village Mohrike, six miles away from Police Station Satrab, District Sialkot. The report was lodged by Rukan Din complainant, uncle of the deceased and an eye-witness, at 10-00 p.m. in an adjoining village and he had also sustained three simple injuries while trying to rescue the deceased. The report was recorded by Ghulam Samdani Sub-Inspector P. W. 24. All the respondents were specifically named in the F. I. R. According to the initial report, at the relevant time, the deceased was proceeding from the well known as Lambardaranwala situated to the north of the place of occurrence, in the village abadi carrying a bundle of charri fodder on his head followed by Rukan Din, complainant, his son Buta P. W. 15 and Muhammad Ali P. W. 16, who were at some distance from him. As the deceased reached at point No. 1, shown in the site plan Exh. P. A. in front of the Itaveli of Haider son of Mir Dad, which has no surrounding wall, all the respondents, who admittedly are…

Read the full judgment on Al Wakeelo — Pakistan's AI-powered legal research platform.