1987 PLP 1421 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1421 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz, Hussain; Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1421 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1421 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz, Hussain; Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1421 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Crl. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 154 of 1986).
- Ch. Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in Crl. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 154 of 1986).
- Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Crl. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 194 of 1986).
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1987.
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Complainant (in Crl. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 194 of 1986).
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.311 of 1984 and Murder Reference No.155 of 1984). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 302/307/34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition against conviction‑‑No point of law requiring decision raised‑‑Supreme Court declined to reappraise evidence on record and reverse finding of fact arrived at by two Courts below‑‑Leave to appeal refused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition for enhancement of sentence from imprisonment for life to death‑‑Reasons given by High Court for reduction in sentence being tenable and not requiring interference, leave to appeal refused. Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Complainant (in Crl. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 194 of 1986).
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ This order will dispose of: (i) Crl. PSLA No.154/86 filed by Muhammad Siddiq and others for the enhancement of sentence of the respondents in this petition; and (ii) Crl. PSLA No.194/86 filed by Muhammad Ashraf etc. against their conviction and sentence, as both the petitions are directed against the same judgment of the High Court dated 19‑3‑1986.
2. Relevant facts giving rise to Cr1.PSLA No. 194/86 are that Muhammad Ashraf, Manzoor, Muhammad Khan and Iqbal, were tried for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf and Noor Muhammad and making murderous assault on Jawaya (P.W.8), Muhammad Sharif (P.W.8) and Manzoor (PW.9). They were convicted by the trial Court under sections 302/34 and 307, P.P.C. It sentenced each of them to death under section 302/34, P.P.C. while under section 307, P.P.C. each of them was sentenced to 4 years R.I. They filed an appeal before the High Court which dismissed the same but reduced their sentence of death under section 302, P.P.C. to imprisonment for life. Still not feeling satisfied they have filed a petition for leave to appeal (Crl. PSLA No.194/86) against their conviction and sentence, while Muhammad Siddique and Mst. Nawab Bibi (widow of Noor Muhammad deceased) have filed a petition (Crl. P.No. 154/86) for the enhancement of their sentences.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (in Crl. P. No. 194/86) at some length. All that he seeks is reappraisal of evidence on the record and reversal of finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below. No question of law has been raised requiring decision by this Court. We do not, therefore, consider this to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition is consequently dismissed.
4. As for Crl. PSLA No.154/86 filed by Muhammad Siddique etc. for the enhancement of the sentences of the four respondents in that petition (who are petitioners in the petition dealt with above), we have gone through the relevant portions of the judgment of the High Court and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in that petition. We are of the view that the reasons recorded by the learned High Court for reducing the sentence of the respondents‑accused under sections 302/34 PPC are tenable and do not require interference by this Court. This petition is, therefore, also dismissed. M.I. /M‑116/S Petitions dismissed