1987 PLP 42 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 42 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 42 (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 42 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 42 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Waheed‑ud‑Din Virk, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 12th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13‑2‑1982, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 1979). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Prosecution relying on testimony of eye‑witnesses, recovery of crime weapon, medical evidence and evidence of motive‑‑Plea for re‑appraisal of evidence on questions of fact not entertained‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 12th October, 1986. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Muhammad Siddiq petitioner was tried for the murder of Arshad Mahmood. He was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,
000. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
2. The motive of offence is stated to be that Muhammad Siddiq accused and Arshad Mahmood deceased were students of 10th Class in Salim Model High School, Lahore. The accused advanced some money to the deceased which was not repaid. The name of the accused was struck off from the roll of the school in May, 1974 but he occasionally visited the school. On 28‑9‑1974, the accused again came to the school where a fight took place between him and the deceased in the class‑room. They were separated. Later on at about 10‑30 p.m., when the deceased came out of the school he was attacked by the accused Muhammad Siddiq. The accused gave him three injuries with the Chhuri one of which landed on the thigh while the two on the buttock. The femoral artery having been cut underneath the injury on the thigh the deceased died in the Mayo Hospital, at 11‑22 a.m.
3. In support of its case the prosecution relied on the testimony of eye‑witnesses namely (1) Muhammad Saeed P.W. 1 and Murid Hussain H.C. P.W. 2; and Tipu Sultan P.W. 6; recovery of the blood‑stained Chhuri P.1 from the accused; medical evidence and the evidence of motive. The trial Court relied on this evidence and convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition at some length. The contentions raised by him only amount to a request for reappraisal of evidence on questions of fact. In the facts and circumstances of this case we do not consider it a fit case for entering into this exercise. The petition is consequently dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.