1987 PLP 711 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAEEM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 711 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAEEM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 711 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 711 (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 711 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAEEM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Amjad Ahad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4‑4‑1982 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1171 of 1979). ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307, 99, 300, Exception 4 a 304, Part I‑‑Private defence, right of Petitioner contending that even if he had no right of private defence, he should have been allowed benefit of Exception 4 to S. 300, P.P.C. and conviction should have been under S.304, Part I, P.P.C.‑‑High Court holding that petitioner had acted in a cruel manner and he was unable to satisfy Court that it was not so‑‑Such being the case, even if it would have been held that other conditions in Exception 4 to S.300, P.P.C. were satisfied, an important condition regarding cruelty was not satisfied‑‑Petitioner, held, had rightly been convicted and sentenced under Ss.302 a 307, P.P.C.‑‑Petition for leave to appeal being without force was dismissed. Masoom Beg v. Muhammad Munir and another 1971 S C M R 476 held not applicable. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Amjad Ahad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 19th January, 1987. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 4‑4‑1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's appeal from conviction and sentences, including life imprisonment and fine, for offences under sections 302 and 307, P.P.C, was dismissed. When in the company of his co‑accused, Mushtaq Ahmad (since acquitted) the petitioner caused knife injuries to Supard Ali and his brother Muhammad Hussain P.W. on vital parts of their bodies. The former expired as a result thereof. Petitioner's father had given some land to the father of the deceased for cultivating fodder for which the latter was to irrigate the land. But for some days before the occurrence, he could not do so; on which he was told by the owner not to cut the fodder. Despite that the deceased and his brother wanted to cut the fodder. The petitioner tried to stop them from doing so and thus both sides indulged in altercation which developed into grappling. The petitioner then took out a knife and injured both of his adversaries, who despite having sickles in their hands, did not use them even to defend themselves. Petitioner's plea of self‑defence having been rejected, he stands convicted under sections 302 and 307, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that even if the petitioner had no right of private defence, he should have been allowed the benefit of Exception IV to section 300, P.P.C. and conviction should have been under section 304‑I P.P.C. It has been held by the High Court that the petitioner acted in a cruel manner. Learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that it was not so. That being so, even if, it would have been held that the other conditions in Exception I V are satisfied (on which we do not express any opinion the same being unnecessary in the circumstances), an important condition regarding cruelty, is not satisfied. For the same reason the judgment of this Court in Masoom Beg v. Muhammad Munir and another 1971 S C M R 476 relied upon by the learned counsel is of no help to the petitioner. He has rightly been convicted and sentenced under sections 302 and 307, P.P.C. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. S.Q./M‑36/S Petition dismissed.