1989 PLP 1387 (SCMR)
GHULAM SARWAR Petitioner Versus JAVAID alias KHALID and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1387 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S.307‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for enhancement of sentence‑‑High Court reduced sentence of accused to already undergone (1 year and 8 months) as alleged motive was too weak and the immediate cause for the attack was not disclosed by the prosecution‑‑Reasons stated by High Court for reduction of sentence being weighty, Supreme Court found no justification for enhancement of sentence‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM SARWAR Petitioner Versus JAVAID alias KHALID and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1387 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1387 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S.307‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for enhancement of sentence‑‑High Court reduced sentence of accused to already undergone (1 year and 8 months) as alleged motive was too weak and the immediate cause for the attack was not disclosed by the prosecution‑‑Reasons stated by High Court for reduction of sentence being weighty, Supreme Court found no justification for enhancement of sentence‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑Sentence. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1387 (SCMR) (GHULAM SARWAR Petitioner Versus JAVAID alias KHALID and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Shahryar, Advocate instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. M. Yamin, Advocate instructed by Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1st July, 1986 in Criminal Revision No.184 of 1986). ‑‑‑S.307‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for enhancement of sentence‑‑High Court reduced sentence of accused to already undergone (1 year and 8 months) as alleged motive was too weak and the immediate cause for the attack was not disclosed by the prosecution‑‑Reasons stated by High Court for reduction of sentence being weighty, Supreme Court found no justification for enhancement of sentence‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑[Sentence].
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the complainant's side in a criminal case under section 307, P.P.C. for enhancement of sentence on conviction of respondent under section 307, P.P.C. The trial Court after finding the respondent guilty under section 307, P.P.C. awarded to him the sentence of four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3,
000. Learned Sessions Judge on appeal maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to 3‑1/2 years' R.I. and also maintained the fine. The High Court while maintaining the conviction further reduced the sentence to the rigorous imprisonment already undergone‑stated by the learned counsel to be about one year and 8 months and also reduced the sentence of fine to Rs.1,
000. The reason which prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court for reducing the sentence is as follows:‑ "It appears that the immediate cause of occurrence has not been disclosed by the prosecution nor the accused has put up clear version as to why he was attacked"' "Since the alleged motive is too weak and the, immediate cause for the attack is not disclosed by the prosecution" .."the sentence already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice." Earlier the learned Judge had made comments on the motive alleged from the prosecution side wherein the question of a divorce was involved. After hearing both the learned counsel on the question of enhancement of the sentence, we feel that for reasons stated in the impugned judgment, which are weighty in the circumstances of this case, no justification has been made out for enhancement of sentence. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.A.K./G‑188/S Leave refused.