1989 PLP 2057 (SCMR)
THE STATE — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2057 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2057 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2057 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2057 (SCMR) (THE STATE — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 1989.
- Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for the State.
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- The learned Additional Advocate‑General has taken us through the confession of Muhammad Ali and after some discussion at the Bar, the learned Additional Advocate‑General agreed that the view taken by the High Court of the confession was also a possible one and, therefore, it could not be interfered with, in an appeal against acquittal. Accordingly, he submitted that in the circumstances he would not press the appeal.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 26-5-1976 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in CrA.No.176 of 1975).
Ss 302 & 300, Exception 1--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question whether the High Court was right in coming to conclusion that if the judicial confession was accepted in its entirety the accused-respondents' case did not fall under S.302, P.P.C. but fell under Exception 1 to S.300, P.P.C.
Ss.302 & 304, Part 1--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Acquittal- Confession--State counsel agreed that view taken by High Court of the confession was also a possible one, and therefore, it could not be interfered with in an appeal against acquittal and thus did not press the appeal--Supreme Court dismissed appeal as not pressed. Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the acquittal of respondent Muhammad Ali by the High Court who was charged and convicted under section 302, P.P.C. along with his brother Muhammad Amir read with section 34, P.P.C. for the murder of their brother‑in- law Muhammad Ismail by the Sessions Judge, Peshawar. Muhammad Ali was sentenced to death while his brother Muhammad Amir to life imprisonment. They were also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each. On appeal and reference, the High Court acquitted Muhammad Amir as it was of the opinion that there was no independent evidence to sustain his conviction apart from the part attributed to him in the judicial confession of his co‑accused Muhammad Ali, which could not be regarded as evidence to bring home the guilt to him. As regards Muhammad Ali, the High Court held that the judicial confession has to be accepted in its entirety and as there was no prosecution evidence to belie its correctness the High Court opined that a fair reading of the confession showed that the deceased was killed by him "purely on the ground of honour" and in the circumstances he would be entitled to the benefit of exception (1) of section 300 of the P.P.C. Accordingly, his conviction under section 302 was altered to section 304, Part I, P.P.C. and the sentence reduced from death to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine was also remitted. The State feeling dissatisfied moved this Court for leave to appeal and by its order dated 27‑11‑1977 this Court granted leave to consider the question A whether the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that if the judicial confession was accepted in its entirety the respondents' case did not fall under Section 302, P.P.C. but fell under Exception (1) of section
300. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has taken us through the confession of Muhammad Ali and after some discussion at the Bar, the learned Additional Advocate‑General agreed that the view taken by the High Court of the confession was also a possible one and, therefore, it could not be interfered with, in an appeal against acquittal. Accordingly, he submitted that in the circumstances he would not press the appeal. In the result this appeal is dismissed as not pressed: M.A.K/S‑422/S Appeal dismissed.