2005 PLP 2314 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ alias GOSHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 2314 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry and Nasim Sabir Ch., JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ alias GOSHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 2314 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 2314 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry and Nasim Sabir Ch., JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 2314 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ alias GOSHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th June, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
S.426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b) & 452
Role ascribed to applicant was that he raised only Lalkara and had not caused any injury to deceased though he was armed with a rifle
Sentence of applicant was suspended in peculiar circumstances of the case, and he was released on bail. Masood Sabir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Through this application under section 426, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Ashfaq alias Goshi, petitioner seeks suspension of sentence as vide judgment dated 9-12-2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, he has been found guilty under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 to legal heirs of the deceased as compensation or in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. He was also found guilty under section 452, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.25,000 or in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in the F.I.R. it was alleged by the complainant that though the petitioner was armed with a rifle and entered into his house, but did not cause any injury to the deceased. Also contends that during investigation police found all the five accused innocent and then a private complaint was filed by the complainant, in which same role was ascribed to the petitioner. Prays that as he has not caused any injury to the deceased, his sentence may be suspended.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposes this application on the ground that conviction was passed six months ago and the petitioner has been found guilty under sections 302/452, P.P.C.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. As the role ascribed to the petitioner is that he raised only Lalkara and had not caused any injury to the deceased, though he was armed with a rifle, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are inclined to suspend his sentence.
5. This application is accordingly accepted and petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M-1103/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application accepted.