1985 PLP 172 (SCMR)
ABDUL QUDDUS — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 172 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34--Sentence--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether it would be appropriate in circum stances of case to reduce sentence of death and instead substantially increase amount of fine under 5.544-A, Cr.P.C.--Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafiur Rehman, M. S. H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL QUDDUS — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 172 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 172 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34--Sentence--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether it would be appropriate in circum stances of case to reduce sentence of death and instead substantially increase amount of fine under 5.544-A, Cr.P.C.--Sentence. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafiur Rehman, M. S. H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 172 (SCMR) (ABDUL QUDDUS — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Quraishi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 1984.
- Mian Inayat Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Advocate General (Punjab) for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 5-8-1979 passed in Criminal Appeal 126 of 1978).
Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34--Sentence--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether it would be appropriate in circum stances of case to reduce sentence of death and instead substantially increase amount of fine under 5.544-A, Cr.P.C.--[Sentence].
Ss.302/34--Sentence--Compromise filed by parties wherein heirs of deceased (his two sons and widow) who were present in Court, stated that they had compromised with accused as per terms stated therein- Heirs of deceased identified by their counsel--Supreme Court after having been satisfied that compromise was genuine, converted death sentence of accused to imprisonment for life and enhanced fine to Rs.25,000 payable as compensation to heirs of deceased under 5.544-A, Cr:P.C.- [Sentence--Compromise). Mian Inayat Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Advocate General (Punjab) for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- The appellant, along with his brother Jahan Khan and his father Abdul Aziz, was tried under sections 302/34, P.P.C. for the murder of Gauhar Badshah on 27-2-1976. Jahan Khan and Abdul Aziz were acquitted by the learned trial Judge, Mianwali vide order, dated 26-1-1978 while the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death under section 302, P.P.C. and a fine of Rs.2,000, which if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased, as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court and his death sentence was confirmed. Leave was granted by this Court per order, dated 15-10-1980 to consider whether it would be appropriate in this case to reduce the sentence of death and instead substantially increase the amount of fine under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Criminal Appeal No.A/55 of 1981 involved the same question and', therefore, both these appeals were ordered to be tagged and fixed for hearing before a larger Bench vide order, dated 9-9-1981. This later appeal was, however, withdrawn by the learned counsel today as having become infructuous. As regards Appeal No.145 of 1980 in view of the compromise filed by the parties wherein the heirs of the deceased i.e. his two sons and widow who were present today in the Court, stated that they have compromised with the appellant as per the terms of the compromise filed in the Court. The said heirs were duly identified by their learned counsel and the question remained for determination is whether the death sentence be converted into imprisonment for life and the amount of compensation be enhanced considering the compromise placed on record. We are satisfied that the parties have genuinely compromised the case and we, therefore, convert the death sentence of the appellant to imprisonment for life and enhance the amount of fine to Rs.25,000 (twenty-five thousand only) payable as compensation to the heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or in default, five years R. I. M . Z . M . Order accordingly.