GBLR 2015

2015 PLP 145 (GBLR)

SHER ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Police Station Gilgit — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Appellate Court
Decided Date
2014-September-23
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2015 PLP 145 (GBLR)
Forum / Court Supreme Appellate Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties SHER ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Police Station Gilgit — Respondent
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 2015 PLP 145 (GBLR)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 145 (GBLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 145 (GBLR) (SHER ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Police Station Gilgit — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Muneer Ahmad, Advocate for Petitioner.
  • Advocate-General for the State.
  • Both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Advocate General were heard at length.
  • The Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan on the other hand strongly contested the arguments with the contention that the criminal case was a result of premeditation by appellant/convict. The occurrence taking place in broad day light in front of the Sessions Court in the presence of natural witnesses. The police personnels are good witnesses who were present at the spot and given a natural and factual account of the occurrence.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 324

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, reduction in

Brother-in-law of accused who brutally killed his wife and two children, was charged under S.302, P.P.C.

When said brother-in-law of accused was brought to the Trial Court for extension of his remand, accused attempted to murder him with .30 bore pistol

Single shot opened by accused was deflected, thereby fire shot did not find its mark

Trial Court convicted accused and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with fine of Rs.3 lac

Chief Court upheld the judgment of the Trial Court

Accused who was a young man of about 22 years at time of occurrence, was badly moved by the brutal act of his brother-in-law, and on the day of occurrence attempted to do away with the killer of his sister, but failed to do so and was found guilty of S.324, P.P.C., for attempt to commit murder

Investigation of the case as well as the conviction of accused, did not suffer from any material defects

Findings of the Trial Court and Chief Court, were correct and convincing, but punishment awarded to accused, was a bit excessive in the circumstances of the case, which could be reduced

Accused had undergone the imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months

Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., had been extended to accused by two courts below

Period of 3 years and 6 months which accused had already spent behind the bars, was enough punishment for the act done by him

Detention of accused behind the bars, was considered as sentence undergone

Fine of Rs.3 lac, was also set aside by Supreme Appellate Court

Sentence of 3 months under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, was considered to have been undergone

Orders of Trial Court and Chief Court, were set aside and accused was ordered to be released from the judicial lock up, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

RAJA JALAL-UD-DIN, J.

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan dated 24-03-2014 who has upheld the judgment of Sessions Judge Gilgit dated 02-06-2012 where in the appellant/convict has been sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment with the fine of Rupees 3 lac and in default to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment. The convict/appellant has also been sentenced to imprisonment 3 months under section 13, A.O. The background of the case made out by the Investigating Officer is that, on the day of occurrence one accused Ibrahim Khan who was brought to the Additional District and Sessions Court for the extension of his remand, who was charged in a criminal case under section 302, P.P.C., was attempted murder by the present appellant/convict namely Sher Zaman with .30 bore pistol, a single fire shot opened which was deflected by the police personnel. Thereby the fire shot did not find its mark. The convict was overpowered and the weapon of offence was recovered from him. The Additional District and Sessions Court Gilgit who found the convict guilty of charge against him and sentenced as aforesaid. The Chief Court Gilgit also concurred with the findings of the Sessions Judge and upheld the judgment dated 02-06-2012. Both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Advocate General were heard at length. The counsel for the appellant/convict mainly based his arguments on the discrepancies of the case such as the absence of independent witnesses and the non-sending of the alleged weapon to the arms expert for examination. The whole case rested upon the testamony of police officials who could not be called as independent persons to base a conviction upon. The Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan on the other hand strongly contested the arguments with the contention that the criminal case was a result of premeditation by appellant/convict. The occurrence taking place in broad day light in front of the Sessions Court in the presence of natural witnesses. The police personnels are good witnesses who were present at the spot and given a natural and factual account of the occurrence. We have given thorough thought to the version of both the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The appellant/convict was a young man of about 22 years at the time of occurrence and he is the brother of wife of Ibrahim Khan who was behind the bars under section 302 for the murder of his wife and two children (the sister and nephews of the convict). The said Ibrahim Khan was later on convicted under section 302 to life imprisonment by the trial court. The appellant/convict Sher Zaman was badly moved by the brutal act of Ibrahim Khan, and on the day of occurrence attempted to do away with the same but miserably failed to do so and thereby found guilty as aforesaid. We feel that the investigation of the case as well as the conviction of the appellant does not suffer from any material defects and the findings of both the Chief Court and Sessions Judge are correct and convincing but we feel that the punishment is a bit excessive in the circumstances of the case and we are inclined to reduce the same. We have calculated the period undergone by the appellant/convict amounts to about 3 years and 6 months. Whereas the benefit of 382-B has also been extended in favour of the appellant/convict by the two courts below. We find that as the appellant/convict has already spent a period of 3 years and 6 months behind the bars is enough punishment for the act done. His detention behind bars is considered as sentence undergone. The fine of Rupees 3 lac is also set aside. The sentence of 3 months under section 13, A.O. is also considered to have been undergone. We therefore order the release of the appellant/convict and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 21-06-2012 and the order of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan dated 24-03-2014 in the FIR No. 83/11 under section 324, P.P.C. to be released from the judicial lockup if not required in any other case. HBT/169/GB Order accordingly.