Pakistan Case Law
2011 SCMR 1349

SALEEM and another vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2011 SCMR 1349
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Jail Shariat Petition No, 9 of 2009
Date2011-05-09
Judge(s)Tariq Parvez, Mian Saqib Nisar, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan and Dr. Muhammad Al-Ghazali
Authored byTariq Parvez
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal in a criminal case where the petitioners challenged the sufficiency and admissibility of evidence. The core legal questions revolved around the absence of an ocular account, the sole reliance on circumstantial evidence primarily an identification parade, the non-production of the supervising Magistrate for the Test Identification Parade, the lack of in-court identification of the accused, the absence of assailant descriptions in the First Information Report, and the non-proof of investigation documents through secondary evidence due to the death of the investigating officer. The Supreme Court considered these submissions substantial and granted leave to appeal for a comprehensive reappraisal of the entire evidence presented in the case.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can leave to appeal be granted for reappraisal of evidence when there is no ocular account and only circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the non-production of a Magistrate who supervised a Test Identification Parade constitute a valid ground for appeal?
  • Is the absence of assailant description in the FIR and lack of in-court identification a significant factor in reappraising evidence?
  • Can the death of an investigating officer and the non-proof of documents through secondary evidence be a ground for granting leave to appeal?
Leave to appealCircumstantial evidenceIdentification paradeTest Identification ParadeFIRSecondary evidenceEvidence reappraisalCriminal appeal

ORDER

' TARIQ PARVEZ, CHAIRMAN.---Inter alia. States that there is no ocular account in this case except circumstantial evidence consisting mainly of identification parade.

2. States that the Magistrate under whose supervision T.I.P. (Test Identification Parade) was held was not produced; that even during the trial the accused assailants were not identified; that no description of alleged assailants was given in F.I.R. And; that the person who conducted the entire investigation was reportedly dead and the documents prepared by him were not proved through secondary evidence. To consider the above submissions, we grant leave to appeal in this petition for reappraisal of the entire evidence.

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