1994 PLP 1211 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1211 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme court or Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Muhammad Afzal Lone and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1211 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1211 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme court or Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Muhammad Afzal Lone and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1211 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record. for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing 13th June, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 3‑5‑1993 passed in Criminal Revision No.419 of 1991 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 302/149/148 & 309/310‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Trial Court had acquitted the accused on the basis of compromise between them and parents of the deceased‑‑‑Probe into the facts of the case, however, revealed that the deceased had also minor sisters and brothers and acquittal of accused was unwarranted‑‑‑High Court, therefore, allowed a week's time to the accused by means of impugned order to consider and consult among themselves for the payment of Rs.1,72,000 to the complainant (father of the deceased) as "Badal‑i‑Sulh"‑‑‑Fact that the deceased had minor sister and brothers was not controverted before Supreme Court, rather the same was admitted in the petition itself‑‑‑Even otherwise the High Court's order was an interlocutory order‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J: ‑‑Muhammad Tufail and two others seek leave to appeal from the order of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑5‑1993 whereby a week's time was allowed to the petitioners "to consider and consult among themselves for the payment of Rs.1,72,000 to Mian Khan" as Badl‑e‑Sulh.
2. The relevant facts are that a case under section 148/302/149 of the P.P.C. was registered against the petitioners and three others for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz. It was sent for trial to the Special Court No. IV‑Lahore.
3. The prosecution had examined as many as 13 witnesses when Mian Khan, the complainant (father of the deceased), moved an application that in pursuance of a compromise he had forgiven the petitioners and their co- accused and had no objection to their acquittal. He, appearing as C.W.1 and his wife Mst. Hamida Bibi (mother of the deceased) as C.W.2 made similar statements in the Court whereupon the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons.
4. In the impugned order the learned Judges of the High Court observed that a probe into the facts of the case revealed that besides the parents, the deceased had also minor sisters and brothers, therefore, acquittal on the basis of compromise was unwarranted. They, therefore, passed the order referred to above.
5. The fact that the deceased had minor sisters and brothers has not been controverted before us. It is rather admitted in ground IV(1) of the petition that the deceased had minor heirs. In that view of the matter and the fact that the impugned order is interlocutory one, we do not feel inclined to l interfere. Leave to appeal is refused. N:H.Q/M-1955/S Leave refused.