1990SCMR496 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990SCMR496 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR496 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR496 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: 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: 1990SCMR496 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Islam Ali Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court Multan Bench dated 11-2-1989 in Criminal Appeal No.1229 of 1976).
Ss.304, Part II, 325 & 323--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-- Contention that offence fell within purview of S.325, P.P.C. and not under S.304, Part 11 was repelled as same had not been substantiated by any material on record. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The trial Judge, by judgment dated 18-11-1976, acquitted Ismail and convicted the father and his two sons as follows:- (1) Rahim Bakhsh under section 323, P.P.C., sentenced to 3 (2) Mazar months' R.I. each. under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. fine Rs.100 as compensation to the injured person or in default one month R.I. each. (3) Muhammad Bakhsh) under section 3(14 Part 1T, P.P.C., sentenced to ten years' R.I. under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. fine of Rs.1,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, or in default six months' R.I. The convicts appealed to the Lahore High Court. Muhammad Bakhsh's appeal was dismissed and as Mazar and Rahim Bakhsh had already served out their sentence the High Court observed that there was no need to apprehend them. Muhammad Bakhsh is before us now. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition. The petitioner had taken the plea of self-defence before the trial Court and the same was pressed into service before the appellate Court as well as before us. The plea was thoroughly discussed by the High Court. Learned counsel, in the first instance, argued for the acquittal of the petitioner but having realized that he had no chance to succeed, the prosecution case having been proved to the hilt, the defence version having not been established he took up an alternative plea that conviction under section 304 Part 11, P.P.C. was not in accordance with law. According to him the case falls within the purview of section 325, P.P.C. The contention has no force because of the reasons given by the High Court and we have also independently examined the same. The plea has not been substantiated by any evidence nor the same can be spelt out from the prosecution evidence. Dismissed. M.A.K./M-1061/S Petition dismissed.