SCMR 1987

1987 PLP 2039 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD SARWAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 405 of 1982, decided on 26th January, 1987.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1987 PLP 2039 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD SARWAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Penal Code (RLV of 1860)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2039 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (RLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2039 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2039 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (RLV of 1860)‑‑

Representation

  • Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
  • Nemo for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 26th January, 1987.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3rd November, 1982 in Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 1979). ‑‑‑Ss. 300, Exception 4, 302 & 307‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Sudden and grave provocation‑‑Deceased retaliating by returning abuses‑‑Effect of‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Convictions and sentences under Ss. 302 & 307, P. P.C. challenged‑‑Plea that it was a case of provocation and sudden fight as deceased had hurled abuses at petitioner, not entertained‑‑Deceased went to petitioner to complain about a petty matter and petitioner, having motive and background of business rivalry, started abusing him‑‑Deceased retaliated by returning abuses and both the petitioners, thereupon, attacked deceased and prosecution witnesses‑‑No case having been made out for re‑appraisal of evidence, leave to appeal refused.

Judgment & Decree

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑Leave to appeal is being sought against the judgment dated 3rd November, 1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.788 of 1979. The facts are that Mohammad Sarwar and Shaukat Ali petitioners were both tried for murdering Mohammad Yaqub and for causing injuries to Manzur Ahmad PW8 and Mohammad Shafi PW

10. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 31st May 1979 convicted Mohammad Sarwar petitioner under section 302, PPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life plus fine whereas it convicted Shaukat Ali petitioner only under section 307 PPC and sentenced him to 5 years RI plus fine. In the High Court a learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 3rd November, 1982 upheld the conviction in both the cases and also maintained the sentences awarded to both the petitioners. The occurrence took place at 6 p.m. on 12th September, 1978 in Mohallah Rahmanpura, Police Station Baghbanpura, District Gujranwala. The FIR was lodged at 8‑45 p.m. on the same day by Manzoor Ahmad PW uncle of the deceased. Both the petitioners were arrested on 13th September 1978. At the instance of the petitioners human blood‑stained Khanjar and hatchet were recovered. Mohammad Sarwar petitioner is stated to have carried the Khanjar whereas Shaukat Ali petitioner was armed with a hatchet. The prosecution produced three eye‑witnesses of the occurrence out of which two are injured namely Manzur Ahmad and Mohammad Shafi PWs. Mohammad Shafi PW is Phupha of the deceased. The third witness Mohammad Mansha PW.9 is first cousin of the deceased and he has not been relied upon. Manzur Ahmad PW had one simple injury on his person caused with a sharp‑edged weapon whereas Mohammad Shafi PW had one simple injury caused with blunt weapon. The motive is that there existed business rivalry between the parties but the immediate cause of the occurrence was that Shaukat Ali petitioner had snapped the kite of Mohammad Mansha PW. The prosecution version is that on the fateful day Mohammad Mansha PW aged 9/10 years was flying a kite from the roof of his house. Shaukat Ali petitioner snapped it whereupon the deceased went and complained to Mohammad Sarwar petitioner brother of Shaukat Ali petitioner. Since already there was background of business rivalry between them, Mohammad Sarwar petitioner started hurling abuses at the deceased who abused in return. Thereupon Mohammad Sarwar petitioner went inside his house and came out with a Khanjar in his hand accompanied by Shaukat Ali petitioner armed with a hatchet, both of them raising Lalkaras. On hearing alarm Mohammad Salim (not produced) and Mohammad Shafi PW were attracted to the spot. Muhammad Sarwar petitioner gave a Khanjar blow on the chest of the deceased who fell down. Thereafter when Manzur Ahmad PW advanced forward to save him Shaukat Ali petitioner gave him a hatchet blow which fell on his forehead. Mohammad Shafi PW also tried to intervene and in the process suffered an injury. Thereafter the accused party ran away. The deceased died before reaching the hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that this was a case of provocation and sudden fight as the deceased has hurled abuses at Mohammad Sarwar petitioner. We do not find any force in this argument of the learned counsel. The kite of the complainant side had been snapped by Shaukat Ali petitioner. The deceased had only complained to his brother Mohammad Sarwar petitioner. It was Mohammad Sarwar petitioner who started abusing him and when the deceased retaliated by returning the abuses, both the petitioners had attacked the deceased and the PWs. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the record. In our view no case is made out for re‑appraisal, of evidence. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M. I. /M‑202/S Petition dismissed.