2006 PLP 2366 (YLR)
ABBAS ALI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2366 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam-uz- Zaman, J |
| Parties | ABBAS ALI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2366 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2366 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz- Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2366 (YLR) (ABBAS ALI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Appellant Abbas Ali along with two others namely Muhammad Boota and Rehmat Ali was tried in case F.I.R. No.9/1995, dated 18-1-1995 registered under sections 302/460, P.P.C. at Police Station, Sharaqpur Sharif by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura who vide judgment, dated 26-9-2000 convicted the appellant under section 302(c) read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo for ten years' R.I. Appellant was also directed to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., or in default whereof to further undergo two months' S.I. Appellant was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment appellant has filed the instant appeal.
3. Appeal of co-accused of the appellant namely Muhammad Boota i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1545 of 2000 has already been admitted vide judgment, dated 6-12-2001. Case of appellant is not distinguishable from that of his co-accused Muhammad Boota. Accordingly appellant is also entitled for the same relief. Even otherwise at the adult legal heirs of Muhammad Ashraf deceased have forgiven the appellant in the name of Allah Almighty and they have no objection if this appeal is allowed. The said compromise is not acceptable because appellant has not deposited the amount of Diyat falling in the share of two minor children of the deceased. Be that as it may, since co-accused of the appellant has been acquitted from the case and case of appellant is not distinguishable from that of his co-accused, this appeal is also allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other criminal case. H.B.T./A-101/L Appeal allowed.