1987 PLP 46 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 46 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 46 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 46 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 46 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Afzal Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 12th October, 1986.
- Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28‑2‑1981, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 1979 and Murder Reference No. 173 of 1979.) (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Conviction based on testimony of injured complainant whose presence at spot could not be doubted‑‑Such testimony was corroborated by recovery of crime weapon‑‑Reappraisal of evidence‑declined by Supreme Court. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382‑B‑‑Benefit of S. 382‑B, Cr. P.C. granted subject to payment of fine to heirs of deceased as compensation‑ Conviction under Ss. 302 & 324, P.P.C.‑‑Sentence of death reduced to that of imprisonment for life but fine enhanced on appeal‑‑Leave to appeal against conviction dismissed and prayer for grant of benefit under S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C. allowed subject to his paying enhanced amount of fine to heirs of deceased as compensation before expiry of his sentence. Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 12th October, 1986. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Muhammad Anwar petitioner was tried and convicted for the murder of Muhammad Aslam and was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.1,
000. On appeal the High Court reduced his sentence of death to that imprisonment for life but enhanced the sentence of fine from Rs.1,000 to Rs.20,000.
2. Briefly the prosecution story is that at about 5‑30 p.m. on the date of occurrence Muhammad Aslam deceased and the complainant were cutting fodder for their animals in their Haveli. Sardar Ali accused and his son Muhammad Anwar accused came at the door of the Haveli. Sardar Ali accused called Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Aslam deceased to come out. Both the persons when came out of their Haveli, Sardar Ali accused held Muhammad Aslam deceased from his Collar and gave him 2/3 slaps, saying that how Muhammad Aslam deceased dared to complain about cutting sugarcane. He also asked his son Muhammad Anwar to teach him a lesson. On hearing this, Muhammad Anwar accused gave two Chhuri blows to Muhammad Aslam deceased. He also gave a blow to Ghulam Hussain, P.W.
1. On hearing the alarm, Bashir, Yaqub and Anwar P.Ws. came to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. They rescued the complainant and the deceased. The deceased was then taken to the hospital by the complainant, where both of them were medically examined by the doctor. The complainant went to the police ‑station at 12‑15 at night alongwith the medical certificates and lodged the F.I.R. Exh. P. 3.
3. The prosecution version is supported by the testimony of Ghulam Hussain P.W., who was himself injured during the incident and as such his presence at the spot cannot be denied. His testimony is corroborated by the recovery of the blood‑stained Chhuri.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The argument raised by him is that the learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and the defence version.
5. We have gone through the relevant portions of the judgments of, the two Courts below and are not persuaded to agree with the petitioner's' learned counsel. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case ford interference by way of reappraisal of evidence. 6.Petitioner's counsel then submitted that the petitioner may be granted the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.
7. We have considered this prayer in the light of the circumstances of the case and direct that if the petitioner pays Rs.20,000 to the heirs of the deceased as compensation (as directed by the High Court) before the expiry of his sentence, the Jail Authorities should counts the period spent as under‑trial prisoner, while computing the period of his sentence. If, however, he fails to pay the above said amount he shall not be entitled to this relief. Sentence of 2 years under section 324, P.P.C. shall run concurrently. With the above observations the petition stands disposed of. M. I. Order accordingly.