1987 PLP 783 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YAQUB alias PANJU‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 783 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQUB alias PANJU‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 783 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 783 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 783 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YAQUB alias PANJU‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15‑3‑1986, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1982. ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) , Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death‑‑Petitioner's counsel arguing that the prosecution had not been able to establish motive alleged by it and that the version put forward by prosecution was not sufficient to rule out defence version‑‑Such contention could not be accepted in view of relevant portion of evidence‑‑Case, held, not fit for grant of leave to appeal‑‑Petition dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1987. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Muhammad Yaqub petitioner was tried for the murder of Muhammad Shakeel and he was sentenced to death under section 302, P.P.C.
2. Prosecution produced 3 eye‑witnesses in support of its case and also relied on the recovery of Chhuri (P.5) from the petitioner, motive and the medical evidence.
3. The accused‑petitioner admitted having killed Muhammad Shakeel but gave a contrary version.
4. Learned trial Court after considering both the versions rejected the defence version and relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to death under Section 302, P.P.C. The High Court rejected his appeal and confirmed the sentence of death. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. He strenuously argued that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive alleged by it and that the version put forward by the prosecution was not sufficient to rule out the defence version.
6. Having gone through the impugned judgment and .the relevant portion of the evidence we are not inclined to agree with the submission. We do not, therefore, consider this to be a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.Q./M‑47/S Petition dismissed.