2006 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD OBAID IQBAL and others — Petitioners Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD OBAID IQBAL and others — Petitioners Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD OBAID IQBAL and others — Petitioners Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hafeez Ansari for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Ashraf Kamboh, Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu and Syed Muhammad Asghar Naeem for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 302, 396 & 397
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.439
Awarding lesser sentence
Three accused while armed with fire-arms, committed robbery and in consequence to the firing of said three accused brother of complainant died while other received injury
Trial Court tried accused under Ss.302(b) & 34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life
Reason given by Trial Court for awarding lesser sentence was that it could not be said with certainty that whose fire hit the deceased
High Court was not satisfied with said reason of Trial Court because accused while armed with fire-arms, had come to the spot with the intention that if anybody would resist, he would be done to death and in consequence of their above act an innocent person was not only robbed of huge amount, but also done to death and one other was seriously injured
Such-like offences in the Society being at peak, people were not safe not only inside their houses, but also on the roads
High Court issued a show-cause notice to all accused that why their sentences should not be enhanced from life to death, if case was ultimately proved against them
Accused would not be released from jail till final disposal of revision and connected matters.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 8-3-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby . respondents were variously convicted in the case registered vide F.I.R. No. 134 of 2001 dated 6-12-2001 under sections 302/396/397, P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Police Station Yakki Gate, Lahore.
2. During the course of arguments it transpired that three respondents, namely, Ghazanfar Ali alias Pappu son of Khurshid Ahmad, Asghar Ali son of Allah Ditta and Riaz Ahmad Virk son of Muhammad Malik, while armed with fire-arms, committed robbery of Rs.87,00,000 on the person of complainant's brother Muhammad Umar Iqbal and in consequence to the firing of the above three respondents the said Umar Iqbal died while Muhammad Hanif received injury. The learned trial Court tried the respondents (along with others) and convicted them under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life each. The reason given by the learned trial Court for awarding lesser sentence is that it cannot be said with certainty that whose fire hit the deceased. I am not satisfied with the above reason of the learned trial Court because the said respondents, while armed with fire-arms, had come to the spot with the intention that if anybody would resist, he shall be done to death. and in consequence of their above act an innocent person was not only robbed from huge amount but also done to death and one Hanif, on resistance, was seriously injured. Such-like offences in the society are at peak, people are not safe not only inside their houses but also on the roads, so I am inclined to issue a show-cause notice to all the above three respondents that why their sentences may not be enhanced from life to death, if case is ultimately proved against them. They shall not be released from jail till the final disposal of this revision petition and the connected matters. In this regard I am fortified with the judgment of the apex Court of the country in the judiciary hierarchy reported in Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Javed PLD 1976 SC 452 wherein, the Full Bench of the Honourable Court held as under:-- "(c) Murder case
Courts., responsibility of
Inhibition or hesitation on part of trial Court in awarding normal penalty of death
Marked tendency to find laboured pretext to alter death sentence to life imprisonment
Necessity of awarding deterrent punishment
Effect of marked propensity to avoid death penalty or to allow commutation in appeal followed by frequent remission of sentences
Factors indirectly contributing to incidence Of heinous crime
Responsibility of Courts. (e) Murder case
There may be a host of extenuating and mitigating circumstances such as extreme youth, sudden provocation, influence of an elder, question of family honour etc., justifying the award of the lesser penalty of life imprisonment based on a chain of judicial pronouncements offering useful guidelines. (f) Sentence
High Court commuting death sentence of J and L on ground of former being a lad of 18 years and role attributed to latter being not distinguishable from that of other convicts who had been leniently treated in award of sentence
Held, Trial Court even if erred in awarding lesser sentence to N against which two revisions one by State and other by complainant were pending in High Court, error would have been more appropriately rectified by enhancing sentence of N to death rather than reducing instead death sentence of J and L and repeat same mistake on pretext of equality of treatment. "
3. As this revision petition is connected with Criminal Appeal No.317 of 2003 (Rashid Ahmad and others v. State), Criminal Appeal No. 716 of 2003 (Riaz Ahmad and others v. State) and Criminal Appeal 438 of 2003 (Saifullah v. State), therefore, all the matters shall be heard together. H.B.T./M-1354/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.