1994 PLP 584 (SCMR)
AHMAD ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 584 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Sajjad Ali Shah and |
| Parties | AHMAD ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 584 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 584 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Sajjad Ali Shah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 584 (SCMR) (AHMAD ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 18th October, 1993.
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6‑i1‑1990 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 1986 and M.R. No. 129 of 1988). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted only to consider the question of the commutation of sentence. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Sentence, commutation of‑‑‑Accused in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Eid Muhammad v. The State PLD 1993 SC 17 were entitled to the concession of Presidential Amnesty‑‑‑Sentence of death of accused was consequently altered . to imprisonment for life: ‑‑[Amnesty Sentence]. Eid Muhammad v. The State PLD 1993 SC 17 ref. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave was granted to consider the commutation of sentence. The leave granting order reads as under:‑‑
"In view of the judgment of this Court dated 27‑4‑1992 dismissing Criminal Appeal No.216/1991 filed by co‑accused of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the conviction. However, relying on the judgment of this Court in Eid Muhammad's case (Criminal Appeal No.49/1991) he contends that the death sentence stands commuted to life imprisonment. Having gone through the evidence we find that the prosecution evidence against the petitioners was on a stronger footing than that of their co‑convicts. The trial Court observed that the motive was directed only against Ahmad Ali son of Bashir Ahmed and his sons i.e. the petitioners herein and not against their co‑convicts and medical evidence also provided corroboration against them. This finding was upheld by the learned Judges of the High Court for valid reasons. The contention regarding commutation of sentence, however, requires consideration and leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted to consider this question only." 2.The appellants were convicted by the learned trial Judge on 29‑9‑1986. The judgment of the High Court is dated 6‑11‑1990. In view of the judgment of this Court in Eid Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1993 SC 17), appellants No.1 and 2 are entitled to the concession of Presidential Amnesty. Their sentence of death is altered to life imprisonment. With this modification in the capital punishment the appeal is dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑1063/S Sentence reduced.