1990 P Cr (PLP)
BASHIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (BASHIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Accused sentenced to five years' R.I. with fine, challenged nature of injury alleged to have been inflicted by him on person of complainant
Question whether alleged injury was or was not grievous requiring consideration
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 426
Accused sentenced to five years' R.I. with fine, challenged nature of injury alleged to have been inflicted by him on person of complainant
Question whether alleged injury was or was not grievous requiring consideration
Execution of sentence awarded was suspended. Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa for Petitioners. Sultan Alam for the State This is a petition for suspending the execution of sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1981. The petitioners have been convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. and section 325/31, P.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5000 and in default to further R.I. for one year under section 307/34 and to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000 and in default thereof to further R.I. for one month under section 325/34. P.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. From Para6(4) it appears that the Radiologist after going through the X-ray film, opined that all the injuries were simple. Aggrieved by this, the complainant submitted an application to the Duty Magistrate with the request that he opinion of the Radiologist is incorrect. Upon that application the Medical Superintendent Muzaffargarh was asked to give his opinion. The Medical Superintendent after going through the X-ray film, opined that fracture of occipital region was there and his report Exh.P.B./1 has been duly proved by him when he appeared in the Court. However, during his statement the Medical Superintendent stated that the X-ray on the basis of which he gave his report is not attached with the file. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to produce the Radiologist concerned. On the other learned counsel appearing on behalf of has vehemently opposed application. He contends that the case stands fully proved against the petitioner and that it is not a fit case for the suspension of the execution of the sentence.
2. I have considered the arguments advanced by the parties of the opinion that the question whether the injury found on the person of Allah Wasaya was or was not grievous, needs consideration.
3. The execution of sentence is suspended provided the petitioners furnish, bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,000 each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of A.C., Kot Addu. Sentence suspended.