1987 P Cr (PLP)
RUSTAM and 2 others‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan. J |
| Parties | RUSTAM and 2 others‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan. J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (RUSTAM and 2 others‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: Ist July, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ‑‑S. 304, Part 1/34‑‑Propriety of sentence‑‑Conviction not challenged‑ ‑Sufficient evidence showing free fight‑‑Sound reasons given by Trial Court‑‑One of accused receiving grievous injury‑ Occurrence, a sudden flare up‑‑Agony of protracted trial suffered by accused‑‑Accused remaining in jail, throughout trial and also for some time after conviction‑‑Sentence already undergone, held, would meet ends of justice in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ‑‑S. 304, Part 1/34‑‑Propriety of sentence‑‑Conviction not challenged‑ ‑Sufficient evidence showing free fight‑‑Sound reasons given by Trial Court‑‑One of accused receiving grievous injury‑ Occurrence, a sudden flare up‑‑Agony of protracted trial suffered by accused‑‑Accused remaining in jail, throughout trial and also for some time after conviction‑‑Sentence already undergone, held, would meet ends of justice in circumstances. Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Appellants. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: Ist July, 1985. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, whereby he on 22‑9‑1977 convicted Rustam, Jiwan and Muhammad Yar appellants under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced to Rustam and Muhammad Yar to seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default to further R.I. for one year and Jiwan to 1‑1/2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 in default to further R.I. for six months.
2. The learned counsel has not challenged the conviction and rightly so because there is sufficient evidence on record to show that it was a case of free fight. The learned trial Court has given sound reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at. The learned counsel has requested for leniency in the sentence. In the circumstances that Muhammad Yar appellant also received grievous injuries that the occurrence took place all of a sudden as held by the trial Court; the agony of the protracted trial suffered by the appellant; the fact that they remained in the jail throughout the trial and that Jiwan Rustam and Muhammad Yar remained in the jail for five months: nine months and more than a year respectively after their conviction and sentence, I am of the view that the sentence already undergone by them would meet the case. Order accordingly. S.A. /R‑19/L Sentence reduced.