Pakistan Case Law
1996 SCMR 1130 (1)

NASEER AHMED vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1996 SCMR 1130 (1)
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Jail Petition No, 23 of 1991, Crl. Appeal No, 703/1988
Date1994-01-26
Judge(s)Muhammad Rafique Tarar, Manzoor Hussain Sial
ResultAppeal is 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 before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the conviction of the petitioner in a criminal case. The core legal questions presented for consideration are twofold: first, whether the eye-witnesses possessed the requisite visibility and opportunity to accurately identify the assailant during the occurrence of the incident at midnight; and second, whether the lower courts adhered to the established judicial principles governing the proper appraisal of evidence in criminal trials as previously articulated by the Supreme Court. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, specifically focusing on the reliability of identification evidence under darkness and the correct application of evidentiary standards by the trial and appellate courts. The judgment initiates a review process to determine if the findings of the lower courts were based on a sound evaluation of the available evidence or if they suffered from legal infirmities regarding the assessment of witness credibility and identification testimony in nocturnal circumstances.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can eye-witnesses reliably identify an assailant during an incident occurring at midnight?
  • What are the principles governing the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases as laid down by the Supreme Court?
leave to appealappraisal of evidenceeye-witness identificationcriminal appealnocturnal identification

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TAR AR, J.---Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the eye-witnesses were in a position to identify the assailant at midnight and whether the Courts below had correctly followed the principles governing appraisal of evidence as laid down by this Court. {incompelte}

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