1988 PLP 464 (SCMR)
Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus HAMAYUN MIRZA — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 464 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus HAMAYUN MIRZA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 464 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 464 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 464 (SCMR) (Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus HAMAYUN MIRZA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S. Baqir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18th December, 1984 in Criminal Appeal No.626 of 1982). --Ss.302 & 304, Part I--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)- Sudden fight-- Inference of--Appeal against alteration of conviction/ reduction in sentence--Accused sustaining more injuries--Conviction under S.302, P.P.C. altered to one under S.304, Part I, P.P.C.--Plea that defence version should not have been relied upon by High Court as it was not a case of self-defence, repelled--Accused having received eight injuries on his person including three incised injuries, whereas deceased had only one fatal incised wound, finding of High Court that it was a sudden fight, upheld--No case having been made out for interference, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 18 December, 1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Briefly the facts are that Hamayun Mirza respondent was charged for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of Muhammad Idrees and the Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide judgment dated 11 December, 1982 convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus fine. On appeal the High Court altered the conviction from section 302 to 304, Part I, P.P.C., and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years' R.I. maintaining the sentence of fine. The occurrence took place at 3-30 p.m. on 23 August, 1982, in Mohalla Wasi Shaheedan, Sialkot. The respondent was arrested on 24 August, 1982 and on 31 August, 1982 at his instance was recovered human blood-stained Chhuri which has not been relied upon by the trial Court. The eye-witnesses produced were Muhammad Shafiq P.W., brother of the deceased, Muhammad Latif P. W . , uncle and Allah Rakh a P. W . (relative not believed). According to the medical evidence the deceased had one incised injury on the back and middle of left chest whereas the respondent had eight injuries simple in nature out of which three had been caused by sharp-edged weapon and five with blunt weapon. The motive is that in a quarrel between the younger brother of the deceased with the other side, the deceased had slapped the boy of the accused party. According to the prosecution version thereupon the respondent came out and gave a Chhuri blow at the back of the deceased who tried to run away. It was argued by learned counsel that the defence version should not have been relied upon by the High Court as it was not a case of self-defence. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. The respondent had as many as eight injuries on his person including three incised injuries, whereas the deceased had only ones fatal incised wound. The finding of the High Court therefore, to the effect that it was sudden fight, is correct. Consequently no case is made out for interference. The petition is dismissed. M.I./R-34/S Petition dismissed