1972 PLP 165 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1972 PLP 165 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 165 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 165 (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: 1972 PLP 165 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Manzur Qadir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 6th March 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment and order of the Supreme Court, dated the 10th November 1971, in P. S. L. A. No. 197 of 1971). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Person convicted for murder and sentenced to death‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal dismissed by Supreme Court but a review petition filed before the Court pending‑General amnesty granted by Government commuting capital sentences of all condemned prisoners‑Held, petitioner could avail of general amnesty even after disposal of review petition. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The main points urged in this review petition are that the impugned judgment has disregarded the effect of the circumstance that wares in the petitioner's shop were lying scattered, and some blood was found in front of the petitioner's shop on both sides of the metalled road, as stated by the investigating officer, which indicate that the complainant party was at least guilty of an offensive intrusion in the petitioner's shop, thereby furnishing a cause for grave and sudden provocation to the petitioner, reducing his offence to man‑slaughter, and that, in any case, the sentence of death awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate to the nature of his crime. The presence of the blood in front of the petitioner's shop does not advance the defence plea. All these arguments were made at the hearing of the leave petition to support the plea of self‑defence as well as to show the sudden and unpremeditated nature of the crime, but they were not accepted. If the circum stances now urged were doubted in support of the pleas, which were raised, they cannot be accepted in support of the new plea of provocation, which was not specifically raised, then but is being urged now in the review petition. Anyhow, no mistake in the impugned judgment has been pointed out and none is apparent on the face of the record to justify the re‑opening of the case in review jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ash a result of the general amnesty lately granted by the Government, the capital sentences of condemned prisoners have been commuted but this concession has been withheld from the petitioner, because of the review petition filed in this Court. We cannot appreciate as to how the review petition can be an impediment in the com mutation of the petitioner's sentence in consequence of the amnesty proclaimed by the Government. At any rate, he can avail of it after the disposal of the review petition. The learned counsel has further submitted that this is a case of absence of any previous enmity, and the circumstances do show that the whole affair was sudden and unpremeditated. We did not consider these factors to be valid for altering the offence of the petitioner from murder to man‑slaughter, as in our view he had acted cruelly by giving four knife blows to the deceased. But these points can certainly be taken into account by the executive authorities for considering the petitioner's sentence in a mercy petition, if the petitioner chooses to file one before them. This petition is dismissed. Leave refused.