1968 SCMR 60 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 60 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 60 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 60 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 60 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Sarjees Nagi, Attorney for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 12th October 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 1966/Murder Reference No. 159 of 1966). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 300, Exception -Grave and sudden provocation-Accused, pretext that one of deceased looked into courtyard of their house, each seizing spears and dang and pursuing deceased to his house beating' him and his father to death-Accused's wall not so high as to prevent passer-by from seeing most of courtyard-Accused's objection and their further action to enforce it, held; acts of extreme high handedness-No case of pro vocation made out-Special leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-The case against the three petitioners, for which they stand convicted for murder, is that on the pretext that the deceased Majid had given offence by looking into the court-4 yard of their house, they seized weapons, namely two spears and a dang and pursued Majid to his house, a short distance away, where they beat him and his father Din Muhammad so that they died. The evidence is clear. Mr. Aftab Farrukh attempted to make out a case of grave aad sudden provocation, on the basis that Majid had been seen trying to have a look at the wife of one A of the petitioners as she was taking a bath in her courtyard behind a cot. This plea was raised in the accused's statements, but there is no affirmative evidence in support. All suggestions to this effect put to prosecution witnesses were denied by them. In the circumstances, the motivation for the savage assault remains as put in the initial report, that the accused persons objected to Majid deceased looking into their courtyard at all. The wall was merely four feet in height, and a passer-by could not be prevented from seeing most of the courtyard. The objection and the further action to enforce it were acts of extreme high handedness. No case of provocation is made out. We dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.