1991 PLP 1590 (SCMR)
ZAR WALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1590 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ZAR WALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1590 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1590 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1590 (SCMR) (ZAR WALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th April, 1991.
- 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. who was on notice. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case was for reduction of sentence of the petitioner and in support he submitted that it was prosecution's own case that the petitioner was an absconder in another case and his uncle Shoukat Ali deceased used to demand of the petitioner not to visit him or to stay in his house because he was a proclaimed offender. Such a demand from such a close relative had provoked the petitioner and he thus committed the murder of his maternal uncle under provocation and is, therefore, entitled to lesser punishment. We have considered the case from this angle and we think that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24-3-1990 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Cr. A. No.103 of 1989 and M. R. No.7 of 1989).
S.302
Accused was absconder in another case and his maternal-uncle (deceased) used to ask him not to visit him or stay in his house as he was a proclaimed offender in another case
Such a demand from such a close relative, provoked the accused who killed the deceased
Sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life by Supreme Court in circumstances. Malik Hamid Saeed, Additional A: G., N.-W.F.P. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is against the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court dated 24‑3‑1990.
2. In this case the petitioner had committed the murder of his maternal uncle namely Shoukat All. The occurrence took place on 21‑2‑1987 at 10‑t10 a.m. in the house of the deceased, the report of which was made by Khalid Khan son of the deceased. The motive given in the F.I.R. for the commission of offence was that the deceased used to give advices to the petitioner of which the petitioner felt offended and committed the murder of his maternal‑uncle.
3. After the completion of investigation the petitioner was put to trial which culminated in his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. and he was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.20,000 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar on 6‑8‑1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner met the same fate.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. who was on notice. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case was for reduction of sentence of the petitioner and in support he submitted that it was prosecution's own case that the petitioner was an absconder in another case and his uncle Shoukat Ali deceased used to demand of the petitioner not to visit him or to stay in his house because he was a proclaimed offender. Such a demand from such a close relative had provoked the petitioner and he thus committed the murder of his maternal uncle under provocation and is, therefore, entitled to lesser punishment. We have considered the case from this angle and we think that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail.
5. In view of the above, we convert this petition into an appeal and reduce the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant to that of imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. The appellant will be entitled to the benefit under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The appeal is thus partly allowed. M.A.K./Z‑128/S Order accordingly.