1990SCMR1099 (PLP)
N/A
| Citation | 1990SCMR1099 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1099 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1099 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1099 (PLP) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused had been recorded on creditable evidence brought on record and suffered from no illegality or infirmity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Judgment & Decree
4. On appeal 'and while seized of the question of confirmation of death sentence, the High Court found that there was no injuries by blunt weapon and gave the benefit of doubt to Muhammad Ashraf son of Sardar and acquitted hire of the charge. The conviction and sentence of Abdul Ghafoor, the petitioner who gave the fatal firearm injury to the deceased was maintained but the sentence of Muhammad Ashraf son of Karam Din was altered from death to imprisonment for life because his chhuri blow was definitely not fatal.
5. The recovery of the weapons has been disbelieved by the High Court and it played no important part because there was no empty recovered from the spot. The alleged discrepancy between the oral and medical evidence with regard to location of the gun shot wound has been taken note of and explained by the learned Judge in the High Court. The eye‑witnesses of the occurrence Muhammad Siddique (PW‑6) and Muhammad Yousaf (PW‑8) have been believed. Even in the background of the theft case it was found that the eye witnesses could possibly have no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner and others in the occurrence, The co‑accused of the petitioner, Muhammad Ashraf son of Karam Din has presumably not appealed against his conviction and sentence.
6. The conviction and sentence. of the petitioner has been recorded on credible evidence brought on the record and suffers from no illegality or infirmity. This Jail Petition merits dismissal. RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑I agree: Leave to appeal is refused: N.H.Q./A‑736/S Petition dismissed.