1989 PLP 534 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AZEEM alias JEEMO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 534 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZEEM alias JEEMO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 534 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 534 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 534 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AZEEM alias JEEMO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th October, 1988.
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26-6-1988, passed in Criminal Appeal No.318 of 1986 and Murder Reference No.139 of 1986). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
S.304, Part I--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was excessive. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑6‑1988.
2. Muhammad Azeem alias Jeemo (now petitioner), alongwith Muhammad Jamil alias Jelo, Ateeq alias Teeqo and Muhammad Akram, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala for offence under section 302/307/452/34, P.P.C. for committing the murder of Muhammad Ilyas and causing injuries to Muhammad Siddiq and Latafat Ali P.Ws. After the trial, Muhammad Azeem was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death plus a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to one year's R.I. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased or to undergo six months' R.I. in default. He was further convicted under section 324, P.P.C. for causing injuries to Muhammad Siddiq and Latafat Ali P.Ws.and sentenced to a fine of Rs.200 on each count or in default to one month's S.I. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.300 to each of the injured P.Ws. as compensation or in default to one month's S.I. Ateeq alias Teeqo and Jamil were also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. for causing injuries to Muhammad Ilyas deceased and Muhammad Siddiq P.W. They were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default to one month's S.I. on both the counts. Ateeq was ordered to pay a sum of. Rs.1,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of Muhammad Ilyas deceased and Muhammad Siddiq P.W. Jamil was directed to pay Rs.2,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Muhammad Ilyas deceased. In default both were sentenced to one month's S.I. Muhammad Akram was, however, acquitted.
3. Muhammad Azeem petitioner alone took the matter of his conviction and sentence to the High Court by way of an appeal and a revision was filed by the complainant for the enhancement of sentence of Ateeq and Jamil and for setting aside the acquittal of Muhammad Akram. All these matters were heard by the learned Division Bench partly accepted the appeal of Muhammad Azeem in that his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. was converted to one under section 304 Part I, P.P.C. and he was awarded imprisonment for life. The rest of the sentences were maintained. The revision filed by the complainant was dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction of the petitioner under section 304, Part 1, P.P.C. but submitted that as the record stands the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is excessive and requires interference by this Court. This requires consideration.
5. Leave is granted to examine the quantum of sentence alone. MA.K./M‑668 Leave granted.