1988 PLP 362 (SCMR)
MUNAWAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 362 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUNAWAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 362 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 362 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 362 (SCMR) (MUNAWAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Date of hearing: 13th December, 1987.
- Malik Muhammad Yousif, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28-3-1982 passed in Criminal Appeal No.955 of 1979).
Ss.302/34, 304, Part 1/34 &324--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal--Grant of--Appreciation of evidence- Petition against alteration in conviction and reduction in sentences- Defence plea relating to right of defence of person accepted by High Court--Supreme Court, on examination of evidence on record found that High Court was justified in accepting defence version--Leave to appeal refused. Malik Muhammad Yousif, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Munawar Hussain petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-3-1982 whereby the conviction of Ghulam Rasool and Inayat respondent was altered from section 302/34, P.P.C. to one under section 304-1/34, P.P.C. and their sentences were reduced to 10 years R.I. each, while the conviction of Khushi Muhammad respondent was altered from section 302/ 34, P . P . C . to one under section-324, P.P.C. and his sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that already undergone by him.
2. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court had partially allowed the appeal of 3 respondents and made the above-noted alterations and modifications in their convictions and sentences because it believed the version of the incident put forward by the accused-respondents through Khushi Muhammad who pleaded the right of defence of the person of his wife who was being forcibly dragged by the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through relevant portions of the evidence on the record and the impugned judgment to urge that the aforementioned versions had been wrongly believed.
4. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we are not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and feel that the High Court was justified in accepting the said defence version. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition which is consequently dismissed. M.I. /M-281/8 Petition dismissed.