1992 P Cr (PLP)
AMANULLAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | AMANULLAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (AMANULLAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345 [as amended under Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance (IV of 1990), S.41‑‑‑Compromise‑‑ Heirs of deceased, who were widow, sons and daughter of deceased, had stated that they had compromised with accused and had forgiven him in the name of Allah ‑‑‑Factum of compromise between parties had also been supported by Chairman of Union Council concerned who had made statement in Court in that respect‑‑‑Compromise arrived at between parties appeared to be genuine and nothing had come to. the light to hold that it could be the result of some coercion or misconception‑‑‑Nothing being on record calling for action under S.311, P.P.C. as well, compromise entered into between parties was allowed and accused was acquitted by way of acceptance of compromise. Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345 [as amended under Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance (IV of 1990), S.41‑‑‑Compromise‑‑ Heirs of deceased, who were widow, sons and daughter of deceased, had stated that they had compromised with accused and had forgiven him in the name of Allah ‑‑‑Factum of compromise between parties had also been supported by Chairman of Union Council concerned who had made statement in Court in that respect‑‑‑Compromise arrived at between parties appeared to be genuine and nothing had come to. the light to hold that it could be the result of some coercion or misconception‑‑‑Nothing being on record calling for action under S.311, P.P.C. as well, compromise entered into between parties was allowed and accused was acquitted by way of acceptance of compromise. Ch. Nazir Ahmad for Appellant. Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State. Amanullah was tried alongwith three others for having murdered Din Muhammad on '5‑5‑1990 at 0‑tK) a.m. In the fields in the are, of village Pandoke, at a distance of 7 kilomctros from Police Station Lahore Vide judgment, dated 27‑5‑1991, learned Additional 'Sessions, Judge. Lahore, held him guilty under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him undergo imprisonment for‑life plus to pay a fine of Rs.30,000 in default where of to suffer R.I. for two years lie was also directed to pay a sum A Rs.20,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased in default where of to suffer further R.1. for one year
2. He preferred appeal against his conviction. Duringn the Pendency of the appeal, a petition was, filed on behalf of‑the appellant that the heirs of the deceased have compromised with him and forgiven him the name of Allah. A direction was issued to produce the heirs of the deceased.
4. There is nothing on record calling for action under section 311, P.P.C. as well. In the circumstances, the compromise entered into between the parties i, allowed. The appellant is acquitted fly way of acceptance of the compromise. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. H.B.T./A‑63/L Accused acquitted.