1982 PLP (2) (SCMR)
GHULAM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP (2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XIV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XIV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP (2) (SCMR) (GHULAM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th June, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 9‑2‑1982, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 1981). ‑‑ Ss. 307/34‑Attempted murder‑Lathis having been held to be lethal weapons, attack with lathis or dangs causing injuries resulting in death considered with motive, nature of attack as well as number and location of injuries, held, covered under S. 307, Penal code, 1,
860. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J ‑Ghulam Hussain petitioner was tried along with Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Akram, for an offence under section 307; P. P. C. by a section 30 Magistrate. The allegation against the petitioner and his co‑accused was that they attacked at Muhammad Boota (P. W. 1) and Muhammad Siddiq (P. W. 2) with dangs causing two injuries to Muhammad Boota and six injuries to Siddiq aforesaid.
2. The learned trial Court convicted all of them under section 3(17/34, P. P. C. arid sentenced to 5 years' R. I. plus fine of Rs. 1,000 each or further one year's R. I.‑ in default of payment of fine. Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Akram challenged their conviction in appeal before the High Court while Ghulam Hussain petitioner also filed a separate appeal before it. The learned High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 9‑2‑1982, accepted the appeal of Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Akram, while it maintained the conviction and sentence of Ghulam Hussain. Hence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute either the occurrence or challenge the evidence led in support of the prosecution version, but only urged that on the facts proved on the record the offence in question is not covered by section 307/34, P. P. C.
4. Having considered the motive for the incident and the nature of the attack as well as number and location of the injuries caused by lathis, which have been held in numerous cases to be lathal weapons, we feel that in the circumstances of this case, the offence is covered by section 307, P. P. C.
5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any merit. Petition dismissed.