1989 PLP 1383 (SCMR)
RASHID AHMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1383 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | RASHID AHMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1383 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1383 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1383 (SCMR) (RASHID AHMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record and Farooq A. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 18‑5‑1987 in Cr. A. 154 of 198‑1 and Cr. Rev. 523 of 1985). ‑‑‑Ss. 302 &. 304, Part I‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑No previous enmity existing between parties‑‑Accused having no motive to commit the offence‑‑Death of deceased taking place as a result of sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel‑‑Accused causing only one injury, taking no undue advantage of the situation nor acting in a cruel or unusual manner‑‑Accused having no intention to cause death of deceased‑‑High Court, held, committed no illegality by altering conviction from S.302, P.P.C. to S.304, Part I, P.P.C. to justify interference by Supreme Court‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Rashid Ahmad son of Barkat Ali, resident of Chak 'xo.232/GB, District Faisalabad, seeks, leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18‑5‑1987. The petitioner lodged report at Police Station Satiana with regard to the murder of Ali Ahmad which took place on 28‑10‑1981 at 9 p.m. within the area of Chak No.232/GB. It was recorded by Sub‑Inspector Muhammad Ashraf. Muhammad Jameel alias Jeela was tried for the murder of Ali Ahmad by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The trial Judge, by judgment dated 20‑2‑1984 found him guilty. He was sentenced to death and fine of Rs.4,000 or in default two years' R.I. He was also ordered to pay Rs.6,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. On appeal the High Court acquitted him of the charge of murder. He was instead convicted under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' R.I. and fine of Rs.15.000. The reason which prevailed with the High Court in altering the conviction and reducing the sentence was as follows:‑ "...It is proved on the record that there was no previous enmity between the parties. There was absolutely no motive on the part of the appellant to commit the offence. The death of the deceased, of course, took place as a result of sudden fight between them in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel on the occasion of prize giving ceremony to the cyclists. It may also be noted that the appellant caused only one injury on the person of the deceased and decidedly he did not take any undue advantage of the situation and nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner. He could cause more injuries to the deceased but he did not do so. This shows that the appellant had no intention to cause the death of the deceased." Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasoning of the High Court was neither sound nor in accordance with law. We are unable to agree with that. On the other hand we are of the view that by altering the conviction and sentence the High Court committed no illegality which would justify interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. . M.A.K./R‑93/S Petition dismissed.