1968 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Sarjees Nagi, Attorney for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 300, Exception 1‑Grave and sudden provocation‑Accused, on pretext that one of deceased looked into courtyard of their house, seizing spears and dang and pursuing deceased to his house beating him and his father to death‑Accused's wall not so high as to prevent passer‑by from seeing most of courtyard‑Accused's objection and their further action to enj6rce it, held, acts of extreme high handedness‑No case of provocation made out‑Special leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.‑The case against the three petitioners, for which they stand convicted for murder, is that on the pretext that the deceased Majid bad given offence by looking into the court yard of their house, they seized weapons, namely two spears and' a dang and pursued Majid to his house, a short distance away, where they beat him and his father Din Muhammad so that they died. The evidence is clear. Mr. Aftab Farrukh attempted to make out a case of grave and sudden provocation, on the basis that Majid had been seen trying to have a look at the wife of one of the petitioners as she was taking a bath in her courtyard behind a cot. This plea was raised in the accused's statements, but there is no affirmative evidence in support. All suggestions to this effect put to prosecution witnesses were denied by them. In the circumstances, the motivation for the savage assault remains as, put in the initial report, that the accused persons objected to Majid deceased looking into their courtyard at all. The wall was merely four feet to height, and a passer‑by could not be prevented from seeing most of the courtyard. The objection and the further action to enforce it were acts of extreme high handedness. No case of provocation is made out. We dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.