| Case ID |
1abb3b4f-42fe-4c29-a3d5-c54b48040082 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1925 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 13, 1955 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 07, 1955 |
| Decision |
The court upheld that the judgment is not vitiated if the judge dictates preliminary or non-controversial points before the conclusion of arguments. The non-compliance with the formalities of section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be cured by section 537 unless it is shown that prejudice was caused to the accused. The court also ruled that expert opinions regarding handwriting identity need to meet specific standards to be admissible. Furthermore, the court emphasized the necessity of corroboration for accomplice testimony, stating that a conviction based solely on an accomplice's uncorroborated testimony is not sound in law. The decision concluded that Abdul Qadir was guilty of murder and conspiracy for orchestrating the murder of Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh, Advocate, due to previous enmity and loss incurred from the Advocate's legal actions against him. |
| Summary |
In the case before the Lahore High Court, the court addressed the appeal of Abdul Qadir, who was convicted of the murder of Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh, Advocate. The case revolved around accusations of conspiracy and murder, with the prosecution presenting testimonies from accomplices and material evidence recovered from the crime scene. The court examined the procedural adherence in the trial, particularly concerning the delivery of judgment and the necessity of corroborative evidence for accomplice testimonies. The ruling emphasized that while judgments may not be vitiated by procedural irregularities, substantial evidence is required to support allegations of murder and conspiracy. The court ultimately upheld the conviction, citing the clear motive of personal enmity and the orchestrated nature of the crime. This case highlights the intricate balance between legal procedure and substantive justice in criminal law, reinforcing the importance of due process and the need for reliable evidence in securing convictions. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SHABIR AHMAD,
MUHAMMAD SHARIF
|
| Lawyers |
M. Sleem,
Anwar,
Amjad Hussain,
Dr. Tasadduque Hussain,
A. R. Changez
|
| Petitioners |
ABDUL QADIR
|
| Respondents |
THE CROWN
|
| Citations |
1956 SLD 47,
1956 PLD 100
|
| Other Citations |
Juma and another v. The Crown P L R 1954 Lah. 859,
P L D 1954 Lah. 783,
Fazal Dad v. The Crown P L D 1955 F. C. 152
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Evidence Act (1 of 1872)
|
| Sections |
367,
537,
45,
114(b),
133
|