2008 PLP 904 (SCMR)
SHER DIL — Appellant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 904 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Bench Members | Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, Zia Perwez, Justices Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood and Allama Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari, Members |
| Parties | SHER DIL — Appellant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 904 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 904 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction bench comprising: Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, Zia Perwez, Justices Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood and Allama Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 904 (SCMR) (SHER DIL — Appellant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 396---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185---Appeal to Supreme Court---Counsel for appellant had stated that parties had patched up their disputes and had entered into a compromise---No compromise deed being on record, the court had directed the appellant to provide copies of statements of the witnesses---Counsel for appellant had stated that compromise deed had been provided to the office, but same had not been put up before the court---Case was adjourned to enable the office to annex the compromise deed with the paper book.
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant says that the parties have patched up their disputes and have entered into a compromise. He further submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted under section 396, P.P.C., as in view of the facts of the case he could not have been guilty under section 396, P.P.C. or for the offence of robbery but could be held liable only for causing death and would be held guilty of murder, under section 302, P.P.C. which is a compoundable offence. However, there is no compromise deed on record. It is also noted that on 23-12-2005 this Court had directed the appellant to provide copies of statements of the witnesses. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court says that the compromise deed has been provided in the office but the same has not yet been put up before us.
Headnotes / Summary
M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Respondent No.2 in Person along with Mst. Muhammad Jan, Mst. Shazia Malik, Mst. Tiaba Malik, Mst. Maryyam Malik and Umar Malik.
Judgment & Decree
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant says that the parties have patched up their disputes and have entered into a compromise. He further submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted under section 396, P.P.C., as in view of the facts of the case he could not have been guilty under section 396, P.P.C. or for the offence of robbery but could be held liable only for causing death and would be held guilty of murder, under section 302, P.P.C. which is a compoundable offence. However, there is no compromise deed on record. It is also noted that on 23-12-2005 this Court had directed the appellant to provide copies of statements of the witnesses. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court says that the compromise deed has been provided in the office but the same has not yet been put up before us.
2. Adjourned to enable the office to annex the compromise deed with the paper. Legal heirs of the appellant who are present in Court today are not required to appear on the next date of hearing. H.B.T./S-11/SC Order accordingly.