1990 PLP 516 (SCMR)
NAZRA and another‑‑Petitioners' Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 516 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | David lqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NAZRA and another‑‑Petitioners' Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 516 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 516 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: David lqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 516 (SCMR) (NAZRA and another‑‑Petitioners' Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
1989. " (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15 October, 1988 in Criminal Revision No.382 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.324/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Victim was cross -examined at length and he had given a detailed account of the occurrence as to how he was caused injuries by both the accused‑‑‑Defence version was rightly rejected‑‑‑Petition was time‑barred by two days‑‑‑Case not fit one for the grant of leave to appeal‑‑‑Petition was dismissed on merits as well as being barred by time. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989. JAVID IOBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15 October, 1988 whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence was dismissed. Briefly the facts arc that the petitioners were tried for an offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. and the Judicial Magistrate Sargodha convicted both of them under section 324/34, P.P.C. sentencing them to two years' R.I. plus fine each. On appeal the conviction and sentence were maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge. Subsequently the criminal revision of the petitioners was dismissed by the High Court as stated above. Hence the present petition. The injured person is Muhammad Amir. The motive is that sometime ago the said Muhammad Ami had beaten Nazra petitioner and his mother. It was in this background that the petitioners armed with Kassi and Dang attacked Muhammad Amir and inflict ,d injuries to him. According to the medical evidence the victim had received 9 injuries at the hands of the petitioners in the form of incised and contused wounds as well as abrasions. Injury No.1 was on the head and this was an incised injury caused with sharp‑edged weapon. The rest were simple. Some of the injuries were kept under observation but subsequently all were declared as simple. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that there was delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. and that the eye‑witnesses were not present at the time of the occurrence. But these arguments of learned counsel have no force. Muhammad Amir victim was cross‑examined at length and has given a detailed account of the occurrence as to how he was caused injuries by both the petitioners. The defence version was that he had received these injuries due to' fall from the bicycle. This defence version was rightly rejected. This petition is even barred by two days. After hearing learned counsel we are of the view that it is not a fit, case for the grant of leave. The petition is therefore dismissed on merits as well as barred by time. M.A.K./N‑193/S Petition dismissed.