SCMR 1990

1990 PLP 1101 (SCMR)

Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ Versus MAZHAR and others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 159 of 1987, decided on 9th January, 1990.
Honorable Judges
Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1990 PLP 1101 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ
Parties Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ Versus MAZHAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1101 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1101 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1101 (SCMR) (Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ Versus MAZHAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • M. Irshad Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 9th January, 1990.
  • Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. .

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the, judgment and order dated 29‑4‑1987 of the Lahore High Court. Lahore, in Cr. Revision No. 258 of 1984/Cr. Appeal No. 196 of 1984). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 304, Part I & 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the accused, whose intention to kill was obvious as he had fired straight at close range on deceased causing him injuries, should have been found guilty under S.302, P.P.C. and awarded normal sentence of death and whether sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused by trial Court had been reduced to 10 years, R.I. by High Court without giving any reason whatsoever. Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. .

Judgment & Decree

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑Mazhar, respondent No, alongwith his three brothers and father was tried under sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149, P.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang who vide order dated 11‑1‑1984 found that there was a scuffle between the accused and the complainant party, in which Mazhar, respondent No.1, fired at Haq Nawaz resulting in the latter's death. The former was found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, P.P.C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10.000 or three years rigorous imprisonment in default thereof, The amount of fine if realised was to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The three brothers and father were acquitted.'' The convict Mazhar filed Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 1984. The complainant Zulfiqar, the petitioner, filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 258 of 1984 against acquittal of the accused. These were taken up together by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore who vide order dated 29‑4‑1987 upheld the conviction of Mazhar under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. But the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Fine of Rs.10,000 was maintained, but in default, rigorous imprisonment was reduced from three years to two years. The benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was upheld. The appeal was thus disposed of. Criminal revision against acquittal was, however, dismissed. This is vide order dated 29‑4‑1987. The complainant has come up seeking leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition as against the acquitted accused viz. respondents 2 to

5. Petition against them is, therefore, dismissed. As regards Mazhar, respondent No. 1, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent fired straight at close range on the deceased causing the following injuries: "(1) A firearm wound of entrance oval in shape, 7 cm x 6 cm x unprobed on front of right abdomen (right hygochondrum) with intestine coming out of the wound. (2) A firearm wound 4 x 4 cm into bone deep on back of left hand at the base of left index finger with crushing of soft issue and bone. Wound of entry and exit cannot be distinguished. ' (3) A firearm wound with blackening of margins 3 x 5 cm x skin deep in front of left upper arm near elbow." The intention to kill was obvious. He should have been found guilty under section 302, P.P.C. and awarded normal sentence of death. In any case, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the respondent by the learned trial Court has been reduced to 10 years, without giving any reason whatsoever. Contentions raised require consideration. Leave is granted as against Mazhar son of Chiragh respondent No.

1. Non‑bailable warrants to issue against him. N.H.Q./Z‑93/S Leave to appeal granted.