1994 P Cr (PLP)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 365-A
Prosecution evidence was reliable-- Matter had been reported to the police on the very next day of the release of the abductee
Conviction of accused was upheld in circumstances
Abductee, however, had pardoned the accused
Sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to each accused was reduced to imprisonment already undergone by him accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.
Nazar Muhammad son of Mohabbat, Ijaz Ahmad son of Manzur Hussain, Muhammad Khan alias Muhammad Bakhsh alias Mamma son of Waryam and Allah Ditta son of Manak were tried for the abduction of Allah Yar. By judgment, dated 7-8-1993 Special Court No.l (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi convicted them under section 365-A, P.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. They have appealed. Mehr Allah Yar abductee has filed Criminal Revision No.89 of 1993 for enhancement of sentences. Both the matters shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. As per prosecution version Allah Yar P.W.2 was deceitfully taken away by the appellants alongwith them on 17-10-1992. He was wrongfully confined till 19th October, 1992 when he managed to escape. He reported the matter to the police on 20-10-1992. After the completion of investigation the appellants were challaned.
3. The prosecution produced eight witnesses in support of its case, including Allah Yar P.W.2 the abductee and Muhammad Latif P.W.3 who had furnished the ocular account. Relying on their evidence the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as described above.
4. A petition under section S61-A, Cr.P.C. praying for disposal of the appeal on the basis of compromise effected between the parties has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that the offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. is not compoundable. In this view of the matter he requests that this circumstance may be kept in view while considering the quantum of sentence.
5. Allah Yar P.W.2 and Muhammad Latif P.W.3 have proved the factum of abduction. We have perused their evidence and find no reason to disbelieve them. The matter was reported to the police on the very next day of the release of Allah Yar P.W.2. In this view of the matter the offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. is proved against the appellants despite denial of the appellants about the occurrence. They were, therefore, rightly convicted.
6. However, keeping in view the fact that Allah Yar P.W., the abductee, has pardoned/forgiven the appellants, we are inclined to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. We think that ends of justice will be met if the appellants are sentenced to the period of imprisonments already undergone by them. We order accordingly and dispose of the appeal in the said terms. The appellants shall be released from jail, provided they are not required to be detained in any other case. The order regarding forfeiture of movable/immovable property of the appellants is set aside.
7. The licensed arms and weapons may be returned to the licensees on production of licences. Criminal Revision No.89 of 1993, is dismissed. N.H.Q./N-255/L Sentence reduced.