2002 SC M R 1858 (PLP)
MUTABAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2002 SC M R 1858 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Javed Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUTABAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of -1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 SC M R 1858 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of -1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 SC M R 1858 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Javed Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 SC M R 1858 (PLP) (MUTABAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Siddique Khan; Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 30-5-2000 of a learned Division Bench, Peshawar High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.332 of 1998).
Ss.302/324/335/336/337-A(iii)/364/382/411/201/34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Petition for leave to appeal was time-barred by 35 days
Supreme Court condoned the delay m circumstances.
Ss.302/324/335/336/337-A(iii)/364/382/411/201/34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Cold-blooded murder
Five persons were murdered by the accused on refusal of giving hand of one of the girls of the victim party to the accused
Trial Court awarded death sentence to the accused for each murder and appeal was dismissed by the High Court-- Counsel for the accused conceded that there was irrefutable evidence on record to show that accused was responsible for the murders
Only contention of the accused was reduction in sentence
Accused had committed cold-blooded murders and had pre-planned for the same, he was not entitled to any leniency
Supreme Court declined to interfere with the sentence passed by the Courts below
Leave to appeal was refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.
Petitioner, Mutabar, has impugned judgment dated 30-5-2000 of a learned Division Bench, Peshawar High Court, whereby his convictions and sentences, passed by learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Lahore District Swabi, were maintained.
2. The petition is time-barred by 35 days. Under the circumstances, the delay is condoned.
3. The petitioner was convicted by trial Court as follows:-- (a) Under section 302/34, P.P.C. sentenced to death on five counts for the murders of Khanzada, Mst. Tajbaro, Sherzada, Mst. Mashoqa and Mst. Mujahida. (b) Under section 364, P.P.C. for abducting through deceitful means, Khanzada deceased, sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000. (c) Under section 201, P. P. C. sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. (d) Under section 449, P.P.C. sentenced to seven years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000. (e) Under section 324, P.P.C. for effectively attempting at the life of Mst. Shahzadgai, sentenced to ten years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.20,000. (f) Under sections 335/336, P.P.C. for causing injuries to her, sentenced to seven years' R.I. and payment of 1/10th of "Diyat" as "Arsh" (g) Under section 337-A (iii), P.P.C. for causing injuries to the complainant sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and 1 / 10th of "Diyat'! As "Arsh". (h) Under section 382, P.P.C. for committing robbery sentenced to seven years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000. (i) Under section 411, P.P.C., sentenced to three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,00b."
4. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had committed murders of Khanzada, Mst. Tajbaro, Sherzada, Mst. Mashoqa and Mst. Mujahida. On 13-4-1996 at 08-10 hours the report of the incident was lodged by Mst. Shahzadgai, w/o Khanzada deceased. Mst. Tajbaro, Mst. Mujahida and Mst. Mashoqa deceased were her daughters, while Sherzada deceased was her son. On 12-4-1996, the petitioner, who was known to the complainant family, visited their house, dined with them and took Khanzada deceased alongwith him for bringing hay. He killed Khanzada and threw his dead body near a well of the locality. This happened on 12-11-1996. At that time, he was accompanied by co-accused Gultaza, who is still absconding. It is the case of the prosecution that in the night petitioner and said co-accused again came back at the house of the complainant and killed Mst. Mashoqa, Mst. Tajbaro and Mst. Mujahida and Sherzada and also caused injuries to complainant Mst. Shahzadgai. The petitioner also confessed about his guilt before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lahor, District Swabi.
5. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against him and said co-accused. He was convicted by trial Court, as mentioned earlier and his appeal was dismissed by High Court.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that there is irrefutable evidence on record to show that petitioner was responsible for the murders of abovenamed five deceased. He submitted that all this happened as the complainant family had promised to give the hand of Mst. Mashoqa to him (petitioner) and later on declined. Learned counsel only prayed for reduction of sentence. The petitioner had committed cold -blooded murders and had pre-planned for the same. He is not entitled to any leniency.
7. Inconsequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-426/S Petition dismissed.