1972 PLP 187 (SCMR)
KHIZAR HAYAT‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1972 PLP 187 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHIZAR HAYAT‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 187 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 187 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 187 (SCMR) (KHIZAR HAYAT‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Masoom Shah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Amirzada Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 19th April 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated the 27th May 1971, in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1970). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Conviction for murder- Exchange of hot words between deceased and accused a short while before occurrence‑Deceased later shot dead by accused while passing by the field of accused Contention that it was unnatural for deceased to have passed by that way‑Held, mere fact that there was exchange of hot words could not deter the deceased and make hire leave the only path which led to his village‑Special Leave to Appeal against conviction refused by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner was convicted for the murder of Mir Ahmad on the 5th April 1970, at village Kula Dhand and sentenced to death under section 302, P. P. C.. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar. His appeal was also dismissed and his death sentence was confirmed by judgment dated the 27th May 1971, by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment. The prosecution case is that on the day of occurrence, Mohammad and his brother Mir Ahmad deceased were working in their tobacco field at degar qaza wela, when Khizar Hayat petitioner passed that way. Mohammad demanded from the petitioner the wages due to him for working for the petitioner as a labourer for 5/6 days. The petitioner refused to make any payment. There was exchange of hot words after which the petitioner went towards his village. Thereafter Mohammad and his brother finished their work and left for Kula Dhand. When they were passing on the pulla of the field of the petitioner, the deceased again demanded the balance of the wages due to Mohammad. The petitioner refused to pay the amount and opened fire at the deceased who was hit. Mohammad ran away out of fear to his village. He returned from the village after some people had collected there and found that Mir Ahmad had died. The conviction of the petitioner is based on the statement of Mohammad P. W.
9. Mr. Masoom Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that there were certain inherent improbabilities in the presence of Mohammad at the place of occurrence. According to him it was unnatural that Mohammad should be at a distance of 80 feet from his brother Mir Ahmad deceased. He further contended that it was further unnatural that they would pass through the field of the petitioner after there was exchange of hot words. The contentions of the learned counsel have not impressed us. The statement of Mohammad is consistent and no discrepancy has been found in his statement. It may be that the deceased might have approached the petitioner for the payment of wages and in that he might have separated from his brother, to a distance of 80 feet. Similarly, the mere fact that there was exchange of hot words between the parties would' not lead them to leave the path from which their village was, approachable. No other point was urged. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.