2001 PLP 832 (YLR)
NASIR AHMAD and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 832 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | NASIR AHMAD and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 832 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 832 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 832 (YLR) (NASIR AHMAD and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar for Petitioners.
- 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General submits there is no denying the fact that the Radiologist was not produced by the prosecution but Medical Officer who conducted the medical examination of the injured P. W. his statement should be believed in toto.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 337-A(i) & (iii)
No X-ray or the Radiologist was produced by the prosecution to prove that it was a case under 5.337-A(iii), P.P.C.-- Conviction of the accused was altered to under S. 337-A (i), P. P. C. , and he was sentenced accordingly. 1991 PCr. LJ 1081 and 1991 PCr. LJ 1562 ref. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nasir Ahmad One year's R.I. and daman of Rs.2,000 under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. Sikandar Two years' R.I. and arsh to the tune of Rs.30,000 under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. Muhammad One year's R.I. and daman of Aslam Rs.2,000 under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended in favour of all the convicts. Ghulam Muhammad, accused died during the trial, therefore, the case against him stood abated. The conviction and sentence was recorded by the learned trial Magistrate on 7-2-2001. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab maintained the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Magistrate vide judgment, dated 18-4-2001.
3. In support of this revision petition, learned counsel submits that no case under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. is made out because the Radiologist was not produced by the prosecution and the case if any, is made out against the petitioners is of under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. that is (SHUJA-E-KHAFIFA). Learned counsel in support of his submission relied upon 1991 PCr.LJ 1083 and 1991 PCr.LJ 1562.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General submits there is no denying the fact that the Radiologist was not produced by the prosecution but Medical Officer who conducted the medical examination of the injured P. W. his statement should be believed in toto.
5. The short law point involved in this case is whether any X-Ray was produced or the Radiologist was produced by the prosecution to prove that it was a case under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C.. The answer is in the negative. In this view of the matter the conviction of Sikandar, petitioner convict is set aside and he is convicted under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. Now comes the quantum of sentence, the sentence of 2 years is maintained but the amount of arsh is altered to daman and is reduced to Rs.2,000 in default whereof the convict shall undergo S.I. for two months. So far as conviction and sentence of Nasir Ahmad and Muhammad Aslam convict appellants is concerned, that is maintained. This revision with the alteration of conviction under section 337-A(iii), to under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. qua Sikandart convict appellant, is dismissed. H.B.T./N-92/L Order accordingly.