1968 P Cr (PLP)
MEHRAJ DIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MEHRAJ DIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (MEHRAJ DIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amjad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 300, Exception 1‑Murder Grave and sudden provocation Accused calling Panchayat to consider abduction of his wife by deceased‑Deceased denying allegation‑Accused quietly going home, during progress of deliberations bringing razor and suddenly cutting of deceased's neck, causing instantaneous death‑Conduct of accused, held, completely belied plea of sudden and grave provocation.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The petitioner suspected the deceased of having abducted his newly married wife and at his instance a Panchayat was convened. The deceased denied the allegation and while the deliberations were in progress the petitioner quietly went to his house and came back armed with a razor. He then sat behind the deceased and suddenly placed the razor on his neck and pressed it so hard that it caused his instantaneous death. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty of murder and sentenced him to death and the High Court has on appeal and reference confirmed the sentence. The killing of the deceased by the petitioner is not denied, but in seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel pleads that the petitioner had lost self‑control as a result of grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased in admitting that he bad abducted the petitioner's wife and would not restore her. The plea is not borne out by the record. A suggestion to this effect was made to one of the eye‑witnesses who denied it. The occurrence was witnessed by a number of persons gathered at the venue of the Panchayat who were wholly independent and if at all the deceased had confessed to having abducted the wife of the petitioner there was no reason for them to suppress this fact. Further the fact that the petitioner left the Panchayat and came back armed with a razor with which he cut the throat of the deceased by sitting behind him completely belies the plea of, sudden and grave provocation. We find no merit in the petition for leave to appeal and hereby dismiss it. Petition dismissed.