1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 363 & 364‑A/34‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑Accused sentenced to imprisonment for life‑‑Abduction of minor‑‑Accused not named as abductor by minor‑‑Co‑accused with similar allegation, already acquitted‑‑Case for suspension of sentence, held, was made out and accused was released on bail. Abdul Hamid Rana for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla for Petitioner. Abdul Hamid Rana for the State. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1986. Muhammad Akram petitioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000 under section 36‑A/34, P.P.C. and to R.I. for one year under section 343/34, P.P.C., with the direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. He has moved this petition for suspension of the sentence.
2. Six persons, including the petitioner, were tried on the allegation that on 1st October, 1983 they kidnapped Sabir Hussain, aged 6 years, from Gojra Town in order that he may be murdered or subjected to slavery or lust of any person and wrongly confined him for ten days or more.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conviction of the petitioner is based on the evidence of Muhammad Iqbal and Bashir Masih who stated that they had seen the minor in a tonga with the petitioner, but they are belied by the minor who did not name the petitioner as the abductor. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
4. At the trial the minor, namely, Sabir, stated that he was taken away in a tongs by Hafiz Ullah (co‑convict) who later on took him to Faisalabad and then to Rawalpindi from where he brought him to Kasur and then left him at Gojra Bus Stand. He did not name the petitioner as his abductor although he stated that at Rawalpindi Hafiz Ullah was accompanied by Khalid and Akram. Khalid has since been acquitted. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the suspension of sentence is made out. I, therefore, suspend the sentence of the petitioner subject to his furnishing security in the sum of 88.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Gojra. S.A. Sentence suspended.