1993 PLP 245 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD LATIF‑‑‑Appellant Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 245 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah CJ., Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF‑‑‑Appellant Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 245 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 245 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah CJ., Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 245 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD LATIF‑‑‑Appellant Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Adam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1992.
- Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24‑5‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Crl. Appeal No.176 of 1988). ‑‑‑‑S.304, Part I‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the period of actual sentence as convicts, was commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior Courts in this behalf from time to time. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.304, Part I‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Sentence, enhancement of‑‑‑Period undergone by the accused as convicts though was very short, but the total period served by them as convicts and as under‑trials when added together had come to more than six times the period undergone as convicts‑‑‑If the accused were allowed benefit of S.382‑B, Cr.PC., the total period could not be against the dictates of justice and the same was ordered accordingly whereafter no necessity was felt for enhancement of sentence of imprisonment any further. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ ‑‑‑‑S.304, Part I‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑‑Sentence, imposition of fine‑‑‑Grave and sudden provocation in the case related to the molestation by the deceased of the real sister of the accused‑‑‑High Court in its wisdom had thought it proper not to impose any fine and if such omission was relatable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same had not contravened any principle relating to the award of sentence or even compensation‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court in circumstances. Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑In this criminal appeal for enhancement of sentence in a homicide case the respondents stood convicted under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. Their act was found to be one under grave and sudden provocation and they were given the benefit of Exception 1 to section 300, P.P.C. The sentence was reduced by the High Court from life imprisonment to that undergone. Leave to appeal was granted to examine; whether the period of actual sentence as convicts, was commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior Courts in this behalf from time to time. On scrutiny it has been found that though the period undergone by the respondents as convicts is very short but the total period served by them as convicts and as under trials when added together, it is agreed by the learned counsel for the appellant, comes to more than six times the period undergone as convicts. In this line if the respondents were allowed benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. the total period would not be against the dictates of justice. That being so, we by extending the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. feel that the sentence of imprisonment should not be enhanced any further. Learned counsel for the appellant also sought imposition of heavy fine. The grave and sudden provocation in this case relates to the molestation by the deceased of the real sister of the respondent. The High Court in its wisdom thought it proper not to impose any fine and if the reasons for this omission are assumed to be relatable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the omission to impose fine has contravened any principle relating to the award of sentence or even compensation. There is no force in this point either. In the light of the foregoing discussion this appeal is dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1699/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Appeal dismissed.