2006 SC MR 1274 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus YOUSUF and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 SC MR 1274 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus YOUSUF and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 SC MR 1274 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 SC MR 1274 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 SC MR 1274 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus YOUSUF and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 3rd October, 2005.
- Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh with Respondent No.2 on Court notice.
- 2. It is, inter alia, contended that Division Bench of the High Court suffered from misconception of law and misconstruction of evidence while expressing the opinion that there was no pre-meditation for the commission of Qatl-i-Amd on the part of the respondent or that the incident took place at the spur of the moment. The submission advanced by the learned Advocate-on-Record is also supported by learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh at Karachi, dated 26-4-2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2003 and Confirmation Case No.1 of 2003).
Ss. 302 & 337-F(I)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Petitioner (Complainant) was aggrieved by judgment of High Court upholding conviction of accused, but altering his death sentence to life imprisonment
Petitioner's grievance, was confined to the mitigation of sentence in respect of accused
Contention of petitioner was that order of High Court suffered from misconception of law and misconstruction of evidence while expressing the opinion that there was no pre-meditation for the commission of Qatl-i-Amd on the part of accused or that incident took place at the spur of moment
Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider, whether High Court was legally justified in mitigating capital sentence passed against accused and High Court correctly appreciated evidence in line with principles laid down for safe dispensation of justice in criminal cases. Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh with Respondent No.2 on Court notice.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner-complainant is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, dated 26-4-2005 upholding the conviction of respondent-Yousuf but altering the death sentence to life imprisonment and payment of Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased-Saleem. By the same judgment, High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of co-accused Islamuddin under section 337-F(1), P.P.C. The third co-accused namely Saleem alias Tidda was acquitted of the charge by the trial Court on appraisal of evidence. Criminal acquittal appeal against the said judgment has been dismissed through the same judgment. Petitioner's grievance is, however, confined to the mitigation of sentence in respect of respondent-Yousuf.
2. It is, inter alia, contended that Division Bench of the High Court suffered from misconception of law and misconstruction of evidence while expressing the opinion that there was no pre-meditation for the commission of Qatl-i-Amd on the part of the respondent or that the incident took place at the spur of the moment. The submission advanced by the learned Advocate-on-Record is also supported by learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh.
3. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the High Court was legally justified in mitigating the capital sentence passed against respondent-Yousuf and the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence in line with the principles laid down by this Court for safe dispensation of justice in criminal cases. H.B.T./M-97/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.