1968 SCMR 52 (PLP)
MEHRAJ DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 52 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J |
| Parties | MEHRAJ DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 52 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 52 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 52 (PLP) (MEHRAJ DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 26th October 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 1966).
S. 300, Exception -Murder- Grave and sudden provocation-Accused calling Panchayat to consider abduction of his wife by deceased-Deceased denying allegation-Accused quietly going home, during progress of deliberation bringing razor and suddenly cutting off deceased's neck, causing instantaneous death-Conduct of accused, held, completely belied plea of sudden and grave provocation. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB Ali, J.-The petitioner suspected the deceased of having abducted his newly married wife and at his instance a Panchayat was convened. The deceased denied the allegation and while the deliberations were in progress the petitioner quietly went to his house and came back armed with a razor. He-then sat behind the deceased and suddenly placed the razor on his neck and pressed it so hard that it caused. his instantaneous death. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty of murder and sentenced him to death and the High Court has on appeal and reference confirmed the sentence. The killing of the deceased by the petitioner is not denied, but in seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel pleads that the petitioner had lost self-control as a result of grave -nd sudden provocation caused by the deceased in admitting that he had abducted the petitioner's wife and would not restore her. The plea is not borne out by the record. A suggestion to this effect was made to one of the eyewitnesses who denied it. The occurrence was witnessed by a number of persons gathered at the venue of the Panchayat who were wholly independent and if at all the deceased had confessed to having abducted the wife of the petitioner there was no reason for them to suppress this fact. Further the fact that the petitioner left the Panchayat and came back armed with a razor with which he cut the throat o the deceased by sitting behind him completely belies the plea o sudden and grave provocation. We find no merit in the petition for leave to appeal and hereby dismiss it. Petition dismissed.