1970 P Cr (PLP)
IKRAMUL HAQ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1970 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Wahiduddin Ahmad. JJ |
| Parties | IKRAMUL HAQ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Wahiduddin Ahmad. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 P Cr (PLP) (IKRAMUL HAQ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. R. Change: Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by
- Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner,
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302‑Conviction, for murder‑‑No previous background of enmity between parts‑Prosecution, witnesses wholly independent‑‑Eye‑witness's ace ant of murder consistent‑Circumstances attending upon crime also corroborated
No mitigating circumstance appearing
Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
A. R. Change: Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner, Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 5th February 1970. ORDER. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J. ‑‑The petitioner stands convicted under section 302, P. P. C., and sentenced to death for the murder of Muhammad Yaqub, deceased, by stabbing him with knife on the morning of the l9T~ August 1968, it, the city of Lyallpur. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Ishfaq, P. W, 7, brother of the deceased and two other neighbours, namely, Ghulam Muhammad, P. W. 8 and Muhammad Ramzan, P. W.
9. The deceased was taken to the hospital in injured condition, but he died before medical aid could be given to him. The motive for the crime was a quarrel between the children of the two families on the preceding day which led to exchange of abuses and an altercation in which the deceased slapped the petitioner. We have, with the help of learned counsel for the petitioner, examined the record and found that there was no previous back‑ground of enmity between the parties. Muhammad Ishfaq, brother of the deceased, had, therefore, no reason to substitute the petitioner for the real culprit. Ghulam Muhammad, P. W. 8 and Muhammad Ramzan, P. W. 9 were wholly independent. One of them accompanied Muhammad Yaqub, deceased, to the hospital and his presence is noted in the medico‑legal report. The statement of the other witness was also recorded .by the Investigating Officer in the Hospital soon after Muhammad Yaqub expired. We have read the statements of the three eye‑witnesses and found the account given by them consistent. The circum stances attending upon the crime also corroborate their version. We accordingly find no reason to call in question the findings arrived at by the Courts below that the petitioner was guilty of the offences under section 302, P. P. C., for the pre‑planned murder of Muhammad Yakub, deceased. As no mitigating circumstance appeared the sentence of death was correctly awarded to him. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.