1996 PLP 1069 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BAHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1069 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BAHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1069 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1069 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1069 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BAHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M.A. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th March, 1996.
- M.M.A. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21‑3‑1995 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in Cr.A. No.96/92/BWP and Murder Reference No.3/93/BWP). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 302 & 324‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Convictions of accused were not assailed and only their sentences of death were sought to be reduced to imprisonments for life to promote good will between the parties who were related to each other‑‑‑Accused did not seem to have made any attempt to compromise with the heirs of the deceaseds and the injured persons and he could even now try his luck in such context‑‑‑Accused had killed two persons and also injured two persons in a brutal manner who were closely related to him and no mitigating circumstance was available in his favour‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been made by Muhammad Bahar who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar under section 302, P.P.C., for intentionally taking the lives of Khushi Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad, and sentenced to death on -each count. He was also convicted, under section 324 P.P.C., for causing injuries to Muhammad Shakoor (P.W.1) and Mst. Noor Sain (P.W.2), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more, on each count. He filed appeal before the Bahawalpur Bench of the Lahore High Court but it was dismissed by a Division Bench thereof. The learned Division Bench not only maintained his convictions but also the sentences awarded to him. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Division Bench.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly stated that he would not assail the convictions of the petitioner but would pray for alteration of death sentence to life imprisonment on each count. His plea was that since the petitioner was related to the deceased, he desired reduction in his sentences to promote goodwill between the parties.
3. It is true that the petitioner is married to the daughter of Khushi Muhammad deceased and the said Muhammad Shakoor is son of Khushi Muhammad. It is also an admitted fact that Ghulam Muhammad deceased was father of said Khushi Muhammad and Mst. Noor Sain is also closely related to the petitioner. There is, however, nothing to show that the petitioner's wife or p the injured persons, namely, Muhammad Shakoor and Mst. Noor Sain have pardoned the petitioner. If the petitioner wanted to press into service the relationship with the injured persons and his wife, he should have made an effort to compromise with them. It seems that he had not made any attempt in this behalf. Even now, he can try his luck in the matter; but if he is not inclined to approach his relatives to save his life, we do not find any good reason to save him from the gallows. He has taken two lives and injured two persons in brutal manner although they were closely related to him. There is no mitigating circumstance in his favour. We are, therefore, not inclined to alter the death sentence inflicted on him, on each count. Resultantly, leave to appeal is refused and the petition in hand dismissed. N.H.Q./M-3233/S Leave refused.