1990SCMR1304 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990SCMR1304 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1304 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1304 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1304 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 25‑5‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench). ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Ocular testimony was furnished by father of deceased and an independent witness‑‑‑No enmity existed between parties and deceased's father had no reason to falsely implicate his neighbour (accused) for murder of his daughter‑‑‑Trial Court and High Court both had accepted the ocular testimony and there was no reason to take a different view‑‑‑Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Judgment & Decree
OPINION OF FIRST JUDGE SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner in the petition through jail has been convicted of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death and has also been directed to pay fine. The allegations against him are that on 18‑8‑1983, at 3 p.m.; he caused the death of one Parveen Akthar, a young girl still in her teens, by strangulating her when she resisted his attempt to commit rape upon her. The occurrence was witnessed by her father Fazal Muhammad and one other person bearing the same name. They were attracted , to the scene of crime on hearing her shrieks. The defence of the petitioner was that it was a case of blind murder and that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He produced two witnesses in his defence. The deceased and the petitioner lived in the same Ahata in houses opposite to each other. At the trial the prosecution relied upon the ocular account given by the father of the deceased and Fazal Muhammad (P.W.5). There was no history of enmity between the parties and there was no reason why the father of the deceased should have falsely accused his neighbour of killing his daughter. Fazal Muhammad (P.W.5) was an independent witness. The trial Court as well as the High Court accepted the ocular testimony and there is no reason why we should take a different view. I would refuse to grant leave to appeal to the petitioner. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑I agree. Leave is refused. N.H.Q./M‑1184/S Leave refused.