1990 PLP 413 (SCMR)
Mst. NOORAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ALTAF HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 413 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid |
| Parties | Mst. NOORAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ALTAF HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 413 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 413 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 413 (SCMR) (Mst. NOORAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ALTAF HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23‑2‑1988, passed in Cr. A. No.531 of 1985). ‑‑‑S302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Sentence, quantum of‑ Accused persons acted under the influence of their uncle‑‑High Court in circumstances did not consider extreme penalty of death as appropriate Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by High Court with regard to quantum of sentence‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Sentence, quantum of‑ Accused persons acted under the influence of their uncle‑‑High Court in circumstances did not consider extreme penalty of death as appropriate Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by High Court with regard to quantum of sentence‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th June, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑ Respondents Altaf Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq alongwith Rahma acquitted accused, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. for the murder of Maqbool Ahmad alias Maloo and sentenced both of them to death and fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default to suffer further R.I. for one year each; their co‑accused Rahma, was however, acquitted by extending him the benefit of doubt vide his judgment dated 9‑9‑1985. In appeal before the Lahore High court, the learned Judges of the Division Bench maintained the conviction of the respondents but altered their sentences from death to imprisonment for life. Their sentence of fine and direction as to compensation were upheld and the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr. P.C. was also not given to them, vide impugned judgment. This petition for leave to appeal by Mst. Nooran complainant is for the enhancement of sentence of the accused respondents before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the case against the respondents is proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the learned High Court should have maintained the normal penalty of death which has been provided under section 302, P.P.C. for the offence of murder as awarded to them by the trial Court. There were no mitigating or extenuating circumstances to which justify the lesser penalty of life imprisonment. A perusal of the record shows that Altaf Hussain aged 24 years and Muhammad Sadiq aged 30 years both the respondents led by their uncle Rahma aged 80 years were lying ambushed in the Sarkandas while Rahma raised lalkara and both the respondents thus acted under the influence of their uncle Rahma. The learned High Court, under the circumstances did not consider the extreme penalty of death as appropriate. We also find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the learned High Court with regard to the quantum of sentence awarded to the said respondents, and therefore, do not consider it a fit case for any interference in the impugned judgment. The result is that this petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./N‑200/S Petition dismissed.