2002 PLP 596 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 596 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | S.A. Rabbani and Muhammad Afzal Soomro, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 596 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 596 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: S.A. Rabbani and Muhammad Afzal Soomro, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 596 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Naveed Ahmed for Appellant .
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.302(b)‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Application for compounding of offence‑‑ Charge against the accused was that he killed his wife by burning after sprinkling oil on her‑‑‑Conviction of the accused had been based, merely on the statement of the deceased recorded as dying declaration which later on was incorporated in the F. I. R. ‑‑‑Accused pleaded not guilty‑‑ Offence could be compounded by the legal heirs with the person who had committed the offence and not with one who was only accused of commission of offence‑‑‑Legal heirs of the deceased could only forgive a person who had killed the deceased‑‑‑No reason existed to disbelieve the statement in the form of dying declaration made by the deceased‑‑‑Case was not one where discretion to grant permission to compound the offence could be exercised. Habib Ahmed, A.A.‑G.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.302(b)‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Application for compounding of offence‑‑ Charge against the accused was that he killed his wife by burning after sprinkling oil on her‑‑‑Conviction of the accused had been based, merely on the statement of the deceased recorded as dying declaration which later on was incorporated in the F. I. R. ‑‑‑Accused pleaded not guilty‑‑ Offence could be compounded by the legal heirs with the person who had committed the offence and not with one who was only accused of commission of offence‑‑‑Legal heirs of the deceased could only forgive a person who had killed the deceased‑‑‑No reason existed to disbelieve the statement in the form of dying declaration made by the deceased‑‑‑Case was not one where discretion to grant permission to compound the offence could be exercised. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed for Appellant . Habib Ahmed, A.A.‑G. The appellant has been convicted by Special Judge Court No. 1 (STA), Karachi‑West under section 302(b), P.P.C. and he, has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The charge against the appellant was that he killed his wife Mst. Marium by burning after sprinkling oil on her. The conviction has been based, mainly, on the statement of the deceased, recorded as dying declaration, which was later on incorporated in the F. I. R. Before the trial Court, the present appellant pleaded not guilty and, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. also, he declined to admit his guilt. Even at this stage, he does not accept that he killed the deceased in this case, and has challenged the conviction and sentence by way of present appeal. The offence may be compounded by the legal heirs with the' person who has committed the offence and not with one who is only accused of commission of such offence. The legal heirs of the deceased can only forgive a person, for this purpose, who has killed the deceased. At this stage we do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement in the form of dying declaration made by the deceased. In view of the circumstances of this case, we do not feel that present one is a case where we should exercise our discretion to grant permission to compound the offence. Both the applications are, therefore dismissed. H.B.T./M‑282/K Applications dismissed