2011 PLP 79 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 PLP 79 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Raja Fayyaz Ahmed and Anwar Zaheer Jamali, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 79 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 79 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Raja Fayyaz Ahmed and Anwar Zaheer Jamali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 79 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, J.---Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contends that capital sentence to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case was not justified for the reason that one of the legal heirs of the deceased had compromised with the petitioner. Further submits that on the identical proposition, leave has been granted by this Court in the unreported cases of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.86 of 2007 in JP No.509 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.255 of 2007 in JP No. 100 of 2006 (Abdul Rasheed and another v. The State) only on the quantum of punishment. This Jail Petition is also pressed only on the quantum of punishment of death awarded to the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21-7-2009 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 2004 and Murder Reference No. 441 of 2004).
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the question as to whether death sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court was justified in view of the compromise by one of the legal heirs of the deceased with the accused. Abdul Rasheed and another v. The State Criminal M.A. No. 86 of 2007 in JP No. 509 and Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2007 in JP No.100 of 2006 ref. Syed Ali Imran, Deputy Prosecutor-General, for the State.
Judgment & Decree
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, J.
Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contends that capital sentence to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case was not justified for the reason that one of the legal heirs of the deceased had compromised with the petitioner. Further submits that on the identical proposition, leave has been granted by this Court in the unreported cases of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.86 of 2007 in JP No.509 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.255 of 2007 in JP No. 100 of 2006 (Abdul Rasheed and another v. The State) only on the quantum of punishment. This Jail Petition is also pressed only on the quantum of punishment of death awarded to the petitioner.
2. Accordingly, leave in the instant matter is granted to consider the question as to whether death sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial Court and confirmed by learned the High Court was justified in view of the compromise by one of the legal heirs of the deceased with the petitioner. Appeal be prepared on the same record, as only question of quantum of punishment is involved. N.H.Q./M-47/SC Leave granted.