1987 PLP 1871 (SCMR)
MAQBOOL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus AMIRUDDIN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1871 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saodd Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus AMIRUDDIN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1871 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1871 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saodd Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1871 (SCMR) (MAQBOOL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus AMIRUDDIN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 290 of 1982).
- Ch. Muhammad Shaukat Tarrar; Advocate Supreme Court Rafique Ahmad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 308 of 1982).
- Nemo for Respondent (in both Petitions).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeals from the judgment and order dated 15-6-1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.672 of 1980).
Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302--Petitions for leave to appeal, one by accused challenging his conviction and sentence and other by complainant seeking restoration of sentence of death barred by time--No satisfactory explanation offered for condonation of delay--Petition of accused, on merits too, found to have no substance--Eye-witnesses of occurrence having seen accused stabbing deceased in the chest, Trial Court and High Court believing their testimony--No reason shown to disagree with their assessment of ocular testimony--Petitions dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- Amiruddin alongwith Muhammad Arshad Muhammad Aslam, Maqbool Ahmad and Muhmmad Sharif, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on a charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Muhammad Akram deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused by giving them the benefit of doubt but convicted Amiruddin of the offence under section 302 and sentenced him to death and to pay fine. On appeal and reference, the High Court maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence to imprisonment for life. It also enhanced the amount of fine to Rs.20,
000. Amiruddin has asked for leave to appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence. A brother of Muhammad Akram deceased also seeks leave to appeal for restoration of the sentence of death.
2. Both the petitions are barred by time. The explanations offered for the condonation of delay are not satisfactory. On merits too the petition preferred by Amiruddin has no substance. There were two eye-witnesses of the occurrence who saw him stabbing the deceased in the chest. The learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court have believed their testimony and we see no reason to disagree with their assessment of the ocular testimony. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. S.Q./M-163/S Petitions dismissed.