SCMR 1986

1986 PLP 1106 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ and others — Petitioners Versus KHAKI JAN and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Petitions Nos. 53-R and 274 of 1985, decided on 6th April, 1986.
Honorable Judges
Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 PLP 1106 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ and others — Petitioners Versus KHAKI JAN and 2 others — Respondents
Primary Law (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1106 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1106 (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: 1986 PLP 1106 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ and others — Petitioners Versus KHAKI JAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Sardar Muhammad Ishaque Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Cr. P.53-R of 1985).
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhter, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in Cr. P. 274 of 1985).
  • Nemo for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 6th April, 1986.
  • Sardar Muhammad Ishaque Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Cr. P.53‑R of 1985).
  • Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhter, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner (in Cr. P. 274 of 1985).

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8-4-1985 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 1981/Murder Reference No. 49 of 1982). --Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302--Contention raised by counsel for accused only amounting to a prayer for reappraisal of evidence but perusal of impugned judgment not warranting same--Petition dismissed

Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302--Sentence Petition by complainant for enhancement of sentence of accused--Reasons recorded by High Court for awarding accused lesser sentence of imprisonment for life sound and valid--Interference declined by Supreme Court.

Judgment & Decree

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This order will dispose of (1) Criminal Petition No.274/85 filed by namely, (i) Khaki Jan and (11) Fazal‑ur -Rehman against their conviction and sentence under section 302, P.P.C., and (2) Criminal Petition No.55‑R of 1985, filed by Muhammad Razzaq, Complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused /respondents i.e. Khaki Jan and Fazalur Rehman, for the murder of Iftikhar Ahmad (deceased) from imprisonment for life to one of death.

2. We have neard the learned counsel for the petitioners in each of the aforementioned petitions. The contention raised by' the learned counsel for the accused /convicts (petitioners in Cr. P.274/85) only amount to a prayer for reappraisal of evidence. After going through the impugned judgment we do not consider it a proper case for purpose. The said petition is, therefore, dismissed.

3. As far as Cr. Petition No.53‑R of 1985 filed by the Complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence of the accused/respondents, is concerned, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment we find that the reasons recorded by the High Court for awarding the, respondents, the lesser sentences of imprisonment for life, are sound and valid. We do not, therefore, consider it to be a fit case for interference. Consequently this Petition (Cr.P.No.53‑R of 1985) is also dismissed as being without any merits. ' M . Y . H . Petitions dismissed.