1992 P Cr (PLP)
HASSAN DIN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | HASSAN DIN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (HASSAN DIN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Bashir Mirza for Appellants. Sh. Ehsan Ahmad for the State.
- Date of hearing: 12th June, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 18(0)‑‑‑ ‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 363, 380, 448 & 117‑‑‑Compromise, effect of‑‑‑Accused were paternal‑ uncles of kidnapped minor child‑‑‑Parties had compromised‑‑‑Accused remained in jail for a sufficiently long time‑‑‑Compromise between parties being a recognised ground for reduction in sentence agony of protracted trial coupled with imprisonment suffered by accused would meet the ends of justice‑‑‑Sentence of 2 years' R.I. thus was reduced to one already undergone by accused and sentence of fine was also remitted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby he, on 31‑8‑1983 while acquitting Hassan bin and five others of the charge under section 364‑A, P.P.C. convicted them under various sections of P.P.C. and sentenced them as under:‑ Under section 147, P.P.C, to nine months' R.I. each. Under section 448, P.P.C. to nine months' R.I. each. Under section 380, P.P.C. to two years' R.I. and a fine $f Rs.500 each , in dcfalult of the payment of fine one month's R.I. each. Under section 363, P.P.C. to two years' R.I. and a fine of RS.500 each for kindnapping Muhammad Waris.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction of the appellants under sections 147, 448, 380 and 363, P.P.C. Fie has simply requested for leniency in sentence on the ground of compromise between the parties. Muhammad Waris is present in Court. He states that his custody was delivered to the accused/paternal‑uncle by his mother with her consent and now he is living with them for the last seven years.
3. Since compromise between the parties is a recognised ground for reduction in sentence and the accused are the paternal‑uncles of the minor child kidnapped by them and that the appellants have already suffered the agony of protracted trial and have remained in Jail for sufficient long time, so I feel that the agony of protracted trial coupled with the imprisonment suffered by them as under‑trial prisoners and as convicts would meet the case. The sentence of fine is also remitted. S.A./H‑241/L Order accordingly.