1987 PLP 790 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 790 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Sentence‑ Motive‑‑Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death‑‑Motive for occurrence stated to be an incident in which deceased had allegedly assaulted petitioner with a Soti for damaging his crop‑‑Prosecution at trial not producing any witness having personal knowledge about such assault‑‑Contentions (i) that motive had not been established and that being so, reasons why petitioner shot at deceased were shrouded in mystery, and (ii) in circumstances, capital punishment should not have been imposed needed consideration‑‑Leave to appeal granted on question of sentence alone.‑‑Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, S.A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 790 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 790 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Sentence‑ Motive‑‑Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death‑‑Motive for occurrence stated to be an incident in which deceased had allegedly assaulted petitioner with a Soti for damaging his crop‑‑Prosecution at trial not producing any witness having personal knowledge about such assault‑‑Contentions (i) that motive had not been established and that being so, reasons why petitioner shot at deceased were shrouded in mystery, and (ii) in circumstances, capital punishment should not have been imposed needed consideration‑‑Leave to appeal granted on question of sentence alone.‑‑Sentence. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, S.A. Nusrat 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 790 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 12‑11‑1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 557 of 1982). ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Sentence‑ Motive‑‑Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death‑‑Motive for occurrence stated to be an incident in which deceased had allegedly assaulted petitioner with a Soti for damaging his crop‑‑Prosecution at trial not producing any witness having personal knowledge about such assault‑‑Contentions (i) that motive had not been established and that being so, reasons why petitioner shot at deceased were shrouded in mystery, and (ii) in circumstances, capital punishment should not have been imposed needed consideration‑‑Leave to appeal granted on question of sentence alone.‑‑[Sentence]. Mukhtar Ahmad v . Muhammad Ilyas 1986 S C M R 634; Mati‑ur Rehman v. State 1985 S C M R 489 and Muhammad Iqbal v. State 1984 S C M R 1184 cited. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, Muhammad Zubair in this petition for Special Leave to Appeal was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha of an offence under section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Dost Muhammad deceased and was sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.5,
000. On appeal his conviction and sentences were upheld by the High Court and the sentence of death was confirmed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. According to the prosecution on 5‑11‑1980 at 12‑00 noon, the deceased and his brother Muhammad Khan were returning to their house in village Narri. When they reached near the house of one Dost Muhammad the petitioner emerged from some bushes and fired at the deceased in the chest. The deceased died at the spot. The petitioner ran away with his carbine. The occurrence was reported at Police Station Katha Saghral on the same day at 2‑00 p. m.
3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. He stated that the deceased had been killed by some unknown persons when he was all alone and that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He produced two witnesses in his defence.
4. At the trial the prosecution examined two eye‑witnesses, namely, Muhammad Khan (P. W.5) and Nazar Muhammad (P. W.6). The petitioner also examined two witnesses. After examining the entire evidence the trial Court accepted the testimony of the eye‑witnesses and found the petitioner guilty of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The High Court after re‑appraisal of the evidence maintained his conviction. Learned counsel has not challenged the legality or propriety of his conviction.
5. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be an incident which took place a month prior to the occurrence. It was alleged that the deceased had assaulted the petitioner with a Soti for damaging his crops. At the trial the prosecution did not produce any witness who had personal knowledge about this assult. It is contended on behalf o the petitioner that this was a case where the motive has not been established; that being so, the reasons why the petitioner shot at the deceased were shrouded in mystery. In the circumstances, he argued, this was not a fit case where the capital punishment should have been imposed upon the petitioner. In support of his contention he relied upon Mukhtar Ahmad v. Muhammad Ilyas 1986 S C M R 634, Mati‑ur Rehman v. The State 1985 S C M R 489 and Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1984 S C M R 1184. In these cases the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life was imposed upon the convicts for the reason that the motives for the homicide were shrouded in mystery.
7. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs consideration. We grant leave to appeal to the petitioner on the question of sentence alone. S. Q. /M‑50/S Leave to appeal granted.