SCMR 1985

1985 PLP 65 (SCMR)

NAZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD ALI and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
---Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34--Motive as stated in F.I.R. was that accused suspected illicit relation of deceased with his sister--Since an extenuating circumstance clearly existed in favour of accused, discretion exercised by High Court in imposing lesser sentence did not require interference by Supreme Court--Leave to appeal refused.--Sentence.
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No.396 of 1979, decided on 6th August, 1984.
Honorable Judges
Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rehman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1985 PLP 65 (SCMR)
Forum / Court ---Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34--Motive as stated in F.I.R. was that accused suspected illicit relation of deceased with his sister--Since an extenuating circumstance clearly existed in favour of accused, discretion exercised by High Court in imposing lesser sentence did not require interference by Supreme Court--Leave to appeal refused.--Sentence.
Bench Members Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rehman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ
Parties NAZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD ALI and others — Respondents
Primary Law (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 65 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 65 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the ---Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34--Motive as stated in F.I.R. was that accused suspected illicit relation of deceased with his sister--Since an extenuating circumstance clearly existed in favour of accused, discretion exercised by High Court in imposing lesser sentence did not require interference by Supreme Court--Leave to appeal refused.--Sentence. bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rehman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 65 (SCMR) (NAZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.5.
  • Date of hearing: 6th August, 1984.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 15-7-1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Cr. Appeal No. 806 of 1977).

Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34--Motive as stated in F.I.R. was that accused suspected illicit relation of deceased with his sister--Since an extenuating circumstance clearly existed in favour of accused, discretion exercised by High Court in imposing lesser sentence did not require interference by Supreme Court--Leave to appeal refused.--[Sentence].

Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34--Role of accused being such that he was equally liable under Ss. 302/34, P.P.C. along with other convicted accused--Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether High Court erred in law in convicting said accused only under 5.324/34, P.P.C.

Judgment & Decree

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The real brother of the petitioner herein, namely, Manzoor Hussain, aged 24 years, was murdered on 28-7-1975 at 11/12 in the night in a field near the tube-well of Muhammad Tufail son of Pir Bakhsh within the area of Chak No.22/8-R. within the limits of Police Station Talumba, District Multan. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were accused of having jointly committed the crime and were, accordingly, tried. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who tried them, convicted all of them for the murder of Manzoor Hussain under section 302/34, P.P.C., while respondent No.l was awarded the sentence of death and the other three respondents were sentenced to imprisonment for life. However, on appeal and reference, the High Court, by its judgment, dated 15-7-1979, found respondents Nos. 2 and 4 innocent and acquitted them. However, respondents Nos. 1 and 3 were found by it to be guilty. The former's conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C. was upheld but his sentence was reduced to life imprisonment but as regards respondent No.3, his conviction was altered to one under section 324/34, P.P.C. and his sentence reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the learned High Court. Although this petition for leave, as filed, is directed against the order passed in respect of all the four respondents, Mr. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has, however, pressed before us the petition with respect to the orders passed in regard to respondents Nos.l and 3 only. So far as respondent No.l is concerned, it is submitted that he was armed with a hatchet and attacked the deceased Manzoor Hussain with that lethal weapon and inflicted injuries on the vital parts of his body (viz. right temporal bone and neck); hence there was no reason for reducing his sentence from death to life imprisonment. As regards respondent No.3, it is submitted that he also shared the common intention to murder Manzoor Hussain with respondent No.1 and had fully participated in the occurrence inflicting a knife blow on one of the eye-witnesses viz. Ahmad P.W. We have considered these submissions. So far as the petition directed against the imposition of the lesser sentence upon respondent No.1 is concerned, we are of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the High Court in imposing the lesser sentence does not require any interference. The motive the crime, as stated in the F.I.R. itself, is that Mst. Amiran, sister of respondent No.2 herein was engaged to respondent No.l aforesaid and that the said respondent suspected that Manzoor Hussain deceased had illicit relations with her. In these circumstances, an extenuating circumstance clearly existed in favour of respondent No.l. However, so far as respondent No.3 is concerned, there is prime facie force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his role was such that he was equally liable under section 302/34. P.P.C., along with respondent No. l and that, therefore, the High Court had erred in law in convicting him only under section 324/34, P.P.C. We would, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the above-mentioned submission. The result is that while the petition directed against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 stands dismissed, leave is granted to consider the petition as against Wazir son of Ghulam, respondent No.3 herein. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount returnable to the District Magistrate, Sahiwal, shall issue against him. M . Z . M .?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.