SCMR 1996

1996SCMR1129 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ZAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH KHAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 109 of 1994, decided on 6th February. 1995.
Honorable Judges
Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Fazal Ilahi Khan and
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1996SCMR1129 (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Fazal Ilahi Khan and
Parties MUHAMMAD ZAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH KHAN and 3 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 1996SCMR1129 (PLP)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR1129 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Fazal Ilahi Khan and.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR1129 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ZAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH KHAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Syed Zia Hussain Kazmi, Advocate instructed by Raja Abdul Ghafur, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 6th February, 1995,
  • Syed Zia Hussain Kazmi, Advocate instructed by Raja Abdul Ghafur, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 12‑6-1994 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 111/83 and Criminal Revision No. 3/1984). ‑‑‑‑S. 304, Part I‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted subject to limitation to consider as to whether the Courts below had erred in lave in treating the case of double murder as one falling under Exception 4 of S.300. P.P.C. and of individual liability when there was no evidence to show that the murders were committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders' having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.

Subject to limitation, leave to appeal is granted to consider as to whether the Courts below have erred in law. It treating the case of double murder as one falling under Exception 4 of section 300, P.P.C. and of individual liability when there was no evidence show that the murders were committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders' having taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. N.H.Q/M-2096/S Leave granted.