2006 PLP 1532 (SCMR)
NASEEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus HAKIM ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1532 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | NASEEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus HAKIM ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1532 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1532 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1532 (SCMR) (NASEEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus HAKIM ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 2005.
- The main reason which had weighed with the learned High Court in suspending the sentence awarded to Hakim Ali respondent was that the injury attributed to him on the head of the deceased was not found to exist. The learned Advocate Supreme Court A tried to persuade us to hold that a bruise which was found on the left side of the face of the deceased, which is described as injury No. 1 in the post-mortem report, should be declared to be an injury on the head of the deceased.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of Lahore High Court, dated 26-10-2004 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1/2004 in Criminal Appeal No.79-J of 2004).
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
High Court had suspended the sentence awarded to accused on the ground that the injury attributed to him on the head of the deceased was not found to exist
Contention was that a bruise found on the left side of the face of the deceased described as injury No.1 in the post-mortem report, should be declared to be an injury on the head of the deceased
Held, no such interpretation could possibly be given to a part of the body, which ' according to the Doctor was the face and not the head
Discretion exercised by the High Court in suspending the sentence of accused and releasing him on bail did not suffer from any illegality
Leave to appeal was declined to complainant accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The main reason which had weighed with the learned High Court in suspending the sentence awarded to Hakim Ali respondent was that the injury attributed to him on the head of the deceased was not found to exist. The learned Advocate Supreme Court A tried to persuade us to hold that a bruise which was found on the left side of the face of the deceased, which is described as injury No. 1 in the post-mortem report, should be declared to be an injury on the head of the deceased.
2. We are afraid that it is not possible for us to give any such interpretation to a part of the body, which according to the doctor is the face and not the head. We have not been able to find any illegality in the discretion exercised by the learned High Court in releasing the respondent on bail. This petition is therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. N.H.Q./N-71/SC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.