1987 PLP 276 (SCMR)
LIAQAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 276 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | LIAQAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 276 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 276 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 276 (SCMR) (LIAQAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner '
- Date of hearing: 20th f December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 10‑4‑1984, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 1980 and Murder Reference No. 227 of 1980). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Sentence of death‑ Prayer for reduction in sentence‑‑No mitigating circumstance entitling petitioner to lesser sentence pointed out‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Sentence of death‑ Prayer for reduction in sentence‑‑No mitigating circumstance entitling petitioner to lesser sentence pointed out‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner ' Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 20th f December, 1986. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Liaqat Ali petitioner was tried and convicted, inter alia, of offence under sections 302 and 307, P.P‑C. For the former offence he was sentenced to death and for the latter offence he was sentenced to 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,
000. The High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the death sentence. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition on merits but only urged that the petitioner's sentence of death be reduced to that imprisonment. He has, however not been able to show any mitigating circumstance entitling the petitioner to the lesser sentence under section 302, P.P.C. Leave is, therefore, refused. M.I. Petition dismissed.