1990 PLP 505 (SCMR)
SHABBAR HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 505 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid [qbal and Ghulam Mujaddld JJ |
| Parties | SHABBAR HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 505 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 505 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid [qbal and Ghulam Mujaddld JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 505 (SCMR) (SHABBAR HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and MAslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.307/34 & 353/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Evidence, reappraisal of‑‑‑Two Courts below examined evidence thoroughly and found accused guilty and sentenced him accordingly‑‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence was not to be done by Supreme Court at leave to appeal stage‑‑‑Accused could only succeed in obtaining leave if the counsel would have pointed out any error of law or mistake whereby some evidence had either been misread or not read‑‑‑Such was not the position in the case‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The accused were tried by the Punjab Special Court for Speedv Trials, Sargodha. All were convicted and sentenced as under:‑ Shabbar Hayat , under section 307/34, P.P.C. 14 years' R.I. Shaukat Hayat each with fine of Rs.50,000 or in default two Muhammad Ameer years R.I. each. under section 353/34, P.P.C., two years' R.I. and fine of Rs.10,000 or in default six months' ''` R.I. each. Out of the fine three‑fourth was ordered to be paid to the injured as compensation. The sentences were to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Shaukat Hayat and Muhammad Ameer. Shabbar Hayat's conviction and sentence was upheld; the whole amount of fine was ordered to be paid to the injured. He was further directed to pav Rs.20.000 as compensation to the injured under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. Shabbar Hayat has now filed this petition for leave to appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of the Lahore High Court. At first, Raja Muhammad Anwar tried to avail of the plea of insanity and argued that the petitioner was suffering from epilepsy. Having realized that it would be very difficult to establish this plea he gave it up. Thereafter he criticised the prosecution evidence and submitted that it was neither sufficient nor independent to warrant the conviction and sentence. This submission has no force. Two Courts below examined the evidence thoroughly and then found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him accordingly. Re‑appraisal of evidence is not to be done by us at this stage. The petitioner could only succeed in obtaining leave from this Court if the counsel would have pointed out any error of law or mistake whereby some evidence had either been misread or not read. This is not the position in the instant case. Dismissed. MA.K./S‑452/S Petition dismissed