1989 PLP 1393 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SUBHAN Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1393 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SUBHAN Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1393 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1393 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid 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 1393 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SUBHAN Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Javed Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent Not.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 1989.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. A.‑G. and Rao M,11,Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 23‑5‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 1983). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.302, 307 & 437‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitions against acquittal‑‑Acquittal of accused was based upon appreciation of evidence Interference with such appreciation was not justified‑‑Leave to appeal refused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Sentence‑‑High Court reduced sentence of death to imprisonment for life on the ground that motive for occurrence was rehabilitation of family honour‑‑Discretion exercised by High Court was not arbitrary‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. A.‑G. and Rao M,11,Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN. J.‑‑On the night between 13/14‑12‑81, three real brothers, namely, Muhammad Farooq, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Irfan were sleeping in a room of their Kotha in Chak No.103/TDA in Tehsil Leiah. The room was put on fire and as a result they were badly burnt. Muhammad Farooq subsequently died. The matter was reported at Police Station Leiah on,, the following day at 12‑30 p.m, In the F.I.R. Muhammad Salim and Abdus Sattar,;., respondents, were cited as the persons responsible for the fire. It was alleged that Muhammad Salim was suspecting that Muhammad Irfan was carrying an intrigue with his sister and that in order to take revenge, on the night of occurrence, Muhammad Salim sprayed petrol on the door of the room where the three brothers were sleeping and Abdus Sattar set the with a lighted match stick.
2. After investigation both Muhammad Salim and Abdus Sattar were put on trial on charges under sections 302, 307 and 436, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge found them guilty on all the counts. For the offence under section 302, he sentenced Muhammad Salim to death and Abdus Sattar to imprisonment for life On appeal and reference the High Court acquitted Abdus Sattar but maintained the convictions of Muhammad Salim on various counts as recorded by the learned trial Court. It however reduced the sentence of death passed on him to imprisonment for life on the ground that the motive for the occurrence was rehabilitation of family honour. The petitioner who is father of the deceased, seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. 3.The acquittal of Abdus Sattar is based upon appreciation of evidence and' we see no justification to interfere with it. As regards reduction of the sentence of A Muhammad Salim on the charge under section 302, P.P.C. the High Court ha 's taken into account the motive for the occurrence which the prosecution had itself B set up at the trial. We are not persuaded that the discretion exercised by the High f Court in this regard was arbitrary. Leave is refused. M.A.K/M‑897/S Leave refused.