1987 PLP 1935 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1935 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1935 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1935 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1935 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmad Hussain Shah Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) with Mahmood A Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 17th October, 1982 in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 1981) --Ss. 302 & 304, Part I--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)--Grave and sudden provocation--Re-appraisal of evidence--Petition for grant of leave to appeal against conviction under S. 302, P.P.C.- Accused party constructed wall illegally and when complainant side complained against raising of wall or started demolishing same, they were attacked--Plea that since complainant party had suddenly and gravely provoked petitioner by starting to demolish wall which petitioner and his family had constructed, the case fell under 304, Part I, P.P.C. repelled--No case having been made out for re-appraisal of evidence--Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.--Leave to appeal is being sought against the judgment dated 17th October. 1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 1981.
2. The background is that the present petitioner alongwith his father Pola Khan and his brother Alam Khan was tried for the murder of Muhammad Khan and for causing injuries to Muhammad Sharif P.W.6. brother and Mst. Rahmat Bibi the prosecution version the accused party attacked the complainant side. The petitioner gave a Sota blow on the head of the deceased. Second Sota blow was given on his head by Muhammad Alam. As a result he fell down unconscious. Pola Khan gave a Sota blow to Muhammad Sharif P.W. on his shoulder and when Mst. Rahmat Bibi P.W. advanced forward to separate the parties the petitioner gave a Sota blow which fell on her head. Then Muhammad Alam and Pola Khan each gave one Sota blow which hit her on the forehead and shoulder. The occurrence was witnessed also by Muhammad Fazal P.W. The accused party ran away. The deceased died before reaching the hospital. According to the medical evidence he had two contused wounds on the left side of the head. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore held on the basis of the ocular testimony in the instant case that the petitioner had opened the attack on the deceased and that the injuries on the head of the deceased revealed that they could be the result of a single blow.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that since the complainant party had suddenly and gravely provoked the petitioner by starting to demolish the wall which the petitioner and his family had constructed, the case fell under section 304, Part I P.P.C. and not under section 302, P.P.C. We do not find any force in this argument. The accused party had constructed the wall illegally and when the complainant side had complained against the raising of the wall or started demolishing the same they had been attacked. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the record and in our considered opinion no case is made out for re-appraisal of the evidence. The result is that this petition is dismissed. M.I/M-168/S Petition dismissed.