1988 PLP 121 (SCMR)
Qazi IHSANULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 121 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslwn Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Qazi IHSANULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 121 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 121 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslwn Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 121 (SCMR) (Qazi IHSANULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 1st November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 17-1-1987 passed in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 1983 and Murder Reference No. 60 of 1983).
S. 302--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Sentence, reduction of--Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death under S.302, P.P.C.--No mitigating circumstance entitling petitioner to lesser sentence shown--Plea for reduction of sentence from death to imprisonment for life not entertained--Petition having no merit, dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order will dispose of CrI.PSLA No.36 of 1987 and Jail Petition No. 8-R of 198?, as both are directed by the same party against the same judgment of the High Court dated 17-1-1987 dismissing his appeal in a case under section 302, PPC.
2. The petitioner was tried for and convicted under section 302, PPC for the murder of Muhammad Rafiq. His appeal before the High Court failed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue the case on merits but only prayed for reduction in sentence of the petitioner from death to imprisonment for life.'
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length in support of this plea. He has not been able to show any mitigating circumstance entitling the petitioner to the lesser sentence under section 302, P.P.C. Both the petitions are therefore dismissed as having no merit. M.I . /I-23/S Petition dismissed.