2003 PLP 496 (SCMR)
SAIF ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 496 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C. J., Sardar Muhammad Raza and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | SAIF ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 496 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 496 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C. J., Sardar Muhammad Raza and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 496 (SCMR) (SAIF ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 2nd July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 11‑10‑2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Revision No. 178 of 2000). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.334 & 337‑Q‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Accused had chopped off and mutilated the nose of the victim with a knife and he had been convicted under 5.334, P.P.C. for causing hurt in the nature of "Itlaf‑i -Udw"‑‑‑ Accused, therefore, was liable to "Arsh" which would necessarily be equivalent to the value of Diyat in terms of S.337‑Q, P.P.C. and was not the same thing as the compensation under S.544‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑High Court had already allowed to the accused a period of three years for making the payment of "Arch"‑‑‑Impugned judgment did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused to accused in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.337‑Q‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.544‑A‑‑‑"Aish" not equivalent to compensation‑‑‑"Arch" under the P.P.C. is not the same thing as the compensation under S.544‑A, Cr.P.C. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 11‑10‑2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Revision No. 178 of 2000.
2. The petitioner and other four co‑accused were tried for offences under section 334/109/148/149, P.P.C. for amputating the nose of Zafar Iqbal. The trial Magistrate. Section 30, by judgment dated 19‑2‑1999, convicted the petitioner under section 334, P.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four years with Arsh of Rs.2,40,000 payable to injured P.W. Zafar Iqbal. He was granted the concession of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. However, the other co‑accused were acquitted by extending them the benefit of doubt. The appeal and criminal revision of the petitioner were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur and the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench vide judgments dated 15‑6‑2000 and 11‑10‑2001 respectively. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at the outset that he did not press for setting aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment which had already been served out by the petitioner. He however, contended that the sentence of heavy amount of Arsh of Rs.2,40,000 to Zafar Iqbal was not justified. He referred to the observations by the trial Magistrate that the injured Zafar Iqbal had married four girls including one abductee. He had also developed illicit relations with one Mst. Razia. He, therefore, did not deserve any compensation. It was argued that Arsh was a kind of compensation which could not be awarded in, the circumstances.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at some length. We find that the nose of Zafar Iqbal was chopped off and mutilated by the petitioner with a knife. He was convicted under section 334, P.P.C. for causing hurt in the A nature of Itlaf‑i‑Udw. Therefore, the Arsh would necessarily be equivalent to the value of Diyat in terms of section 337‑Q; P.P.C. read with its Explanation. The Arsh under the P.P.C. is not the same thing as the compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. The High Court has already allowed to the petitioner a period of three years for making the payment of Arsh. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to C call for indulgence by this Court.
5. This petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. Leave refused.