1989 PLP 521 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 521 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 521 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 521 (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: 1989 PLP 521 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 1988.
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur).
Ss.302/34 & 304, Part I read with S.34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--High Court accepting defence version altered conviction from S.302/34, P.P.C. to one under S.304, Part I read with S.34, P.P.C: -High Court, held, had rightly accepted defence version and view taken was correct--Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 9‑6‑1987 altering respondents' conviction from section 302/34, P.P.C. to one under section 304‑I, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C., and reducing their sentences from imprisonment for life to 7 years' R.I. The reason for altering the conviction of the respondents was that the High Court accepted the defence version given by the accused‑respondents.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. He has taken us through the defence version and the relevant portions of the impugned judgment. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Court and feel that the High Court has rightly accepted the defence version. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is consequently dismissed. MA.K./M‑678/S Leave refused.