1976 PLP 336 (SCMR)
BABAR SHAH alias IRSHAD MAHMUD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 336 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Ahmed and Muhammad Gul, JJ |
| Parties | BABAR SHAH alias IRSHAD MAHMUD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 336 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 336 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Salahuddin Ahmed and Muhammad Gul, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 336 (SCMR) (BABAR SHAH alias IRSHAD MAHMUD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).
- Date of hearing : 23rd December 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the Lahore High Court. Lahore, in Criminal Appeals Nos. 671 and 670 of 1972, respectively, dated the 11th August 1975). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-- ‑
S. 326/149 Constructive liability‑ Accused held guilty of offence constructively‑ Question as to who caused grievous injury immaterial. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑
S. 97‑Private defence, right of‑Plea of private defence not taken before trial Court‑Nature of injuries sustained by co‑accused not supporting plea‑No counter‑case alleged or bled‑Plea of right of self‑defence, held, rightly rejected.‑ Private defence right, of. Nemo for the State (in both the Petition).
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUUDIN AHMED, J.‑Both these petitions have been heard together as they arise out of the same incident, and they are now disposed of under one order. In Petition No. 84‑R of 1975, the three petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment under sections 148 and 326/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In Petition No. 83‑R of 1975 one of the said petitioner viz. Babar Shah has been convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. His sentence as well as his sentences under sections 148 and 326/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code were directed to run concurrently. The incident took place in an open place in broad daylight and it has been well proved by four eye‑witnesses two of whom were injured In the incident itself. The motive for the offences of rioting and grievous hurt has also been proved the medical evidence disclosed that P. W. Rafaqat Shah had received several grievous and serious injuries, and that he had been confined to the hospital for more than 20 days. In these circumstances there is no substance in the contention that there was no grievous injury on the said witness. Similarly, there is no force in the contention that in the absence of anything to show who was responsible for the grievous injury the convictior of the petitioners for the grievous injury was illegal. This contention fails to take note of the fact that the petitioners have been constructively held guilty under section 326/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The plea of right of self‑defence was considered by the High Court and it was rightly rejected. The plea was not taken before the trial Court. The nature of the injuries sustained by co‑accused Yaqoob Shah did not support the plea. There was no counter‑case. It has been proved that petitioner Babar Shah was armed with a danger and he injured P. W. Rafaqat with the dagger. It was proved that the dagger was recovered from him. He has, therefore, been rightly convicted and sentenced under the Arms Ordinance. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.