1984 PLP 211 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD LATIF-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 211 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---- Art. 185(3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/452/325/148/149- Accused directly charged by complainant for causing injuries on his head causing partial paralysis--Accused, held, did not deserve any leniency in matter of sentence--Leave to appeal dismissed.--Sentence. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 211 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 211 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---- Art. 185(3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/452/325/148/149- Accused directly charged by complainant for causing injuries on his head causing partial paralysis--Accused, held, did not deserve any leniency in matter of sentence--Leave to appeal dismissed.--Sentence. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 211 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD LATIF-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Zafar Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 1st November, 1983.
- Sh. Zafar Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Imtiaz M. Khan Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 13th March, 1983 passed in Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1981).
Art. 185(3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/452/325/148/149- Accused directly charged by complainant for causing injuries on his head causing partial paralysis--Accused, held, did not deserve any leniency in matter of sentence--Leave to appeal dismissed.--[Sentence]. Imtiaz M. Khan Advocate-on-Record (absent) for the State. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑This petition is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 13‑3‑1983 passed in Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1981.
2. The present petitioner alongwith 4 other persons, was tried by a section 30 Magistrate under section 307/452/325 read with sections 148 and 149, P. P. C. for trespassing into the flour mill of Muhammad Sehdir P. W. 1 and for attempting on the life of Zulfiqar Mehdi, P. W. 7, causing grievous injury to Rahmat Ali, P. W. 2 in the prosecution of their common object. The learned Magistrate, after recording prosecution evidence, convicted the accused petitioners under section 307 and sentenced him to 4 years' R. 1. with a fine of Rs. 1 00) or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and one year R. 1. under section 149, P. P. C. The other accused were also sentenced to one year R. 1. under section 323, P. P. C. and one year's R. 1. under section 148, P. P. C. Fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the injured Zulfiqar as compensation. Appeal was preferred in the Court of Session and revision for enhancement of their sentence was also filed by the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge per order dated 23‑9‑1981 dismissed the appeal and the revision as well. The conviction of the other co‑accused was maintained and sentences were reduced to the period already undergone. A revision was filed before the Lahore High Court which. was dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel contended that the learned Single Judge had given the benefit of doubt to the co‑accused of the present petitioner and acquitted them while maintaining the sentence and conviction of the petitioner on the same evidence, which is violative of the well‑known rules of even handed justice that the prosecution evidence was of `interested' nature and, therefore, it was not safe to rely on it unless the same was corroborated by independent evidence. On going through the record and the judgments of the Courts below we find little substance in the argument of the learned counsel. The petitioner has been directly charged by the complainant for causing injuries to him resulting in injury on his head 1 " X " x scalp deep on his right parietal region causing partial paralysis. Thus the petitioner also does not deserve any leniency in the matter of his sentence. The petition is accordingly dismissed M.Z.M Petition dismissed.