1968 PLP 1276 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1276 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1276 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1276 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 1276 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mazharul Haq Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abid Nawaz Abid, Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 25th June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 26th January 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 1393 of 1967).
S. 316‑Person intentionally thrusting chhuri into an eye of another thereby depriving him of his sight and permanently disfiguring his face‑Guilty of grievous hurt‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State. ORDER ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The petitioner was convicted under section 326, P. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years. He filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum which was dismissed. The revisional application filed in the High Court was dismissed in limine. On the 31st August 1966, at about 4‑30 p.m., Muhammad Sadiq (acquitted accused) and Khalid Mahmood (P. W. 7) quarrelled with each other. Muhammad Sadiq was accompanied by Muhammad Khan. Nematullah (P. W. 3), separated the parties. A short while after this when Nematullah was purchasing sweets from Feroze (P. W. 4), he was accosted by the petitioner and his brother Sadiq. Sadiq abused him and protested against his intervention in the earlier occurrence. Both the brothers then jumped at him and the petitioner thrust into the left eye of Nematullah the chhurri. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence made out against the petitioner does not come under section 326, P. P. C. but it is an offence under section 308, P. P. C. We have not been impressed by this argument. It has been found that the petitioner intentionally thrust the chhurri into the left eye of Nematullah which has not only resulted in permanent disfiguration of his face but also permanent privation of the sight of his left eye. The offence, therefore, committed by the petitioner falls within the definition of grievous hurt and he has been rightly convicted under section 326, P. P. C. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The petitioner was convicted under section 326, P. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years. He filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum which was dismissed. The revisional application filed in the High Court was dismissed in limine. On the 31st August 1966, at about 4‑30 p.m., Muhammad Sadiq (acquitted accused) and Khalid Mahmood (P. W. 7) quarrelled with each other. Muhammad Sadiq was accompanied by Muhammad Khan. Nematullah (P. W. 3), separated the parties. A short while after this when Nematullah was purchasing sweets from Feroze (P. W. 4), he was accosted by the petitioner and his brother Sadiq. Sadiq abused him and protested against his intervention in the earlier occurrence. Both the brothers then jumped at him and the petitioner thrust into the left eye of Nematullah the chhurri. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence made out against the petitioner does not come under section 326, P. P. C. but it is an offence under section 308, P. P. C. We have not been impressed by this argument. It has been found that the petitioner intentionally thrust the chhurri into the left eye of Nematullah which has not only resulted in permanent disfiguration of his face but also permanent privation of the sight of his left eye. The offence, therefore, committed by the petitioner falls within the definition of grievous hurt and he has been rightly convicted under section 326, P. P. C. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.