1995 PLP 853 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD EHSAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 853 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD EHSAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 853 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 853 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 853 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD EHSAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Islam Ali Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- 2. We have heard Mr. Islam Ali Qureshi, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21‑2‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Cr. Appeal No. 58/81). ‑‑‑‑S. 304, Part‑1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑No previous serious enmity existed between the parties‑‑‑Accused had been rightly extended benefit of sudden fight by the High Court by reducing charge from S.302, P.P.C. to S. 304, Part‑I, P.P.C. and thus dealing leniently with him in the matter of sentence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State. Date of heating: 3rd May, 1994.
Judgment & Decree
WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J: ‑‑Muhammad Ehsan, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 21‑2‑1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby his appeal against his conviction and sentence under section 302, P.P.C. for causing the death of Abdul Waheed deceased, was dismissed with the modification that his conviction was altered from under sections 302, P.P.C. to 304 Part‑I, P.P.C. and he was sentenced to ten years R.I. with benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. and also the fine and compensation which was awarded by the trial Court.
2. We have heard Mr. Islam Ali Qureshi, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the arguments advanced by him before the High Court and incorporated in the impugned judgment to the effect that there was clash between two groups belonging to rival political parties and that the deceased being a partisan of one of the groups, met his fate at the hands of a participant of the rival group and falsely implicated the petitioner for the occurrence. This argument has been fairly dealt with by the High Court and we have also scrutinised the evidence produced in the case and satisfied ourselves as to whether the theory advanced by the petitioner can be probable but have arrived at the conclusion that in view of the direct charge and no previous serious enmity between the parties, the prosecution case stands proved against the petitioner and he was rightly convicted and sentenced and was extended benefit of sudden fight by reducing charge from under section 302, P.P.C. to section 304 Part I, P.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative prayed for reduction in the sentence but since already lenient view has been taken by the High Court in the award of sentence under section 304 Part‑I, P.P.C., this prayer cannot be acceded to.
4. Resultantly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused. N.H.Q./2157/S Leave refused.