2005 PLP 1870 (SCMR)
CHAND — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1870 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | CHAND — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1870 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1870 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1870 (SCMR) (CHAND — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sher Nawaz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th July, 2004.
- Talat Farooq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court, Sardar Muhammad Anwar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 13-11-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No.237 of 1998).
Ss. 302(b)/324/337-F(iii)/34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Prosecution, by producing overwhelming incriminating evidence, had successfully established guilt against petitioner/accused
Happening of incident had not been denied by petitioner because he had taken plea of self-defence, but same had not been proved on record and Trial Court had not believed same
Conviction recorded by Trial Court had rightly been maintained by High Court
Accused admittedly not being a minor at the time of commission of offence, he had been convicted/sentenced according to law
Benefit of lesser age could not be awarded to accused, in circumstances
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was declined. Talat Farooq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court, Sardar Muhammad Anwar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 13th November, 2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby appeal filed by petitioner challenging his conviction/sentence awarded to him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh vide judgment dated 2nd April, 1998 has been dismissed, as a result whereof murder reference has been accepted.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner along with co-accused Iftikhar faced trial for the commission of murder of two persons namely Abdul Haq and Abdul Wahid, committed by them on 11th June, 1995 at 11-00 a.m., report of which was lodged at Police Station, Saddar Gojra, Toba Tek Singh, vide F.I.R. No. 177, dated 11th June, 1995. After registration of case the accused were arrested and ultimately sent up to face trial. As they did not plead guilty to the charge read over to them, therefore, prosecution led evidence to substantiate accusation against them. On completion of trial, petitioners were found guilty for the commission of offence and vide Judgment, dated 2nd April, 1998 convicted/sentenced as follows:-- (1) Under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C.
Sentenced to death on two counts with fine of Rs.30,000 on two counts or in default whereof to undergo two years' R.I. on two counts. (2) Under section 324, P.P.C.
Sentenced to five years' R.I. on two counts with fine of Rs. 10,000 on two counts and in default whereof to undergo six months' R.I. on two counts. (3) Under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C.
Sentenced to two years' R.I. on two counts with direction to pay daman @ Rs.20,000 on two counts. Appeal filed by him has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment, as such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset stated that he is not challenging the conviction/sentence of petitioner on merits, however, press for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that at the time of commission of offence, the age of the petitioner was below 19 years.
4. Learned counsel for caveat stated that prosecution has successfully established guilt against the petitioner. Admittedly petitioner was not minor at the time of commission of offence, therefore, except normal penalty of death no other sentence can be awarded to him.
5. We have heard the learned counsel of both the sides and have thoroughly gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence available on record. It may be noted that prosecution by producing overwhelming incriminating evidence has successfully established guilt against the petitioner. Even otherwise, as far as happening of the incident is concerned, it has not been denied by the petitioner because he has taken the plea of self-defence but the same has not been proved on record, as such the trial Court has not believed the same. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction recorded by the trial Court has rightly been maintained by the High Court. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was not minor at the time of commission of the offence, as such he has been convicted/ sentenced according to law, therefore, benefit of lesser age cannot be awarded to him. Thus, for the foregoing reasons we see no substances in this petition as such same is dismissed and leave declined. Leave to appeal declined. H.B.T./C-23/S Petition dismissed.