2002 PLP 1833 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD JALAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1833 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Latif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JALAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1833 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1833 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Latif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1833 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD JALAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 308 & 311‑‑‑Release of accused on bail for payment of Diyat amount‑‑‑Accused had already undergone the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him under 5.311, P. P. C. and was confined in Jail only on account .of his inability to pay the Diyat amount in lumpsum‑‑‑Accused, in circumstances, was released on bail on furnishing bail‑cum‑surety bonds in the sum equal to the Diyat amount payable by him with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, undertaking to pay the same in instalments according to his convenience within a period of three years, failing which he would be rearrested and sent to prison ,where he would stay for such time till he paid the said amount or the remaining portion thereof‑‑‑Appeal was disposed of accordingly. Muhammad Rafique Rajput for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(i) Impugned judgment is illegal and contrary to facts, (ii) Prosecution evidence was discrepant and unreliable whereas defence evidence was reliable and (iii) That sentence is severe.
3. After arguing the appeal at some length, it was realized by the appellant's counsel that the appellant had during his examination under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. admitted that he had inflicted injuries to the deceased, though plea of self‑defence was taken but according to record the deceased was unarmed and the injuries were repeated.
4. Realizing the weakness of his stand appellant's counsel stated that he does not press any ground and urged that the appellant has already undergone the sentence or imprisonment awarded to him under section 311, P.P.C. and is now confined in the jail only on account of non‑payment of Diyat amount; that he is a poor person and is unable to pay Diyat in. lump sum otherwise he would not have stayed in jail after expiry of his substantive sentence. It was prayed that he may be released on bail in order to enable him to pay Diyat as contemplated by section 331, P.P.C.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State did not oppose‑the said request.
6. For the reasons stated above, the i impugned conviction and sentences are maintained and the appeal is disposed of in the manner that the appellant is released on bail provided he furnishes, bail‑cum surety bonds in the sum equal to the amount of Diyat payable by him, with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh, undertaking to pay the same, in instalments according to his convenience. within a period of three years from the date of this order.
7. The offence was committed by the appellant on 5‑2‑1996. Value of Diyat for the financial year 1995‑96 vide Gazette Notification S.R.O. No.601(I) of 1995, dated 2‑7‑1995, was Rs.1,89,906.
8. Widow of the deceased had waived her right of Qiasas without any compensation, her share in Diyat was 1/8th which comes to Rs.23,738.
9. The appellants, therefore, liable to deposit in the trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur) the remaining amount of Rs.1,66,168, as already said within a period of three years from the date of this order in instalments according to his own convenience, failing which he shall be re arrested and sent to prison where he shall stay for such time till he pays the said amount or the remaining portion thereof.
10. The amount of Diyat deposited by the appellant shall be disbursed by the learned trial Court to the legal heirs of Muhammad Ibrahim deceased except his widow, according to their legal shares under the Muslim Law.
11. According to judgment delivered by the trial Court on 9‑5‑2000 (at page 13 para.19) list of legal heirs of the deceased,. Mark 'A' is on the file Appeal disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./M‑1263/L