SCMR 1985

1985 3 C M R 114 (PLP)

AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.277 of 1980, decided on 14th October, 1984.
Honorable Judges
Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J Shafiur Rehman, M. S. H. Quraishi and titian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1985 3 C M R 114 (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J Shafiur Rehman, M. S. H. Quraishi and titian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ
Parties AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 3 C M R 114 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 3 C M R 114 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J Shafiur Rehman, M. S. H. Quraishi and titian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 3 C M R 114 (PLP) (AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advodate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
  • Date of hearing: 14th October, 1984.
  • Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Ejaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for the State.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6-4-1980, passed in Criminal Appeal No.532 of 1978).

Art.185 (3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/149--Sentence- Contention that sentence of imprisonment awarded to petitioners was excessive and may be reduced--Supreme Court, having not been persuaded to do so, being of view that in circumstances of case accused had already been dealt with leniently--Refused to grant leave. Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Ejaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for the State.

Judgment & Decree

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C.J.-- Ahmad and Zulfiqar peti tioners have filed the present petition against their conviction and sentences.. They were tried alongwith 12 others inter alia, for the double murder of (1) Wali and (2) Hamid Khan.

2. That occurrence is stated to have taken place at 12 noon on 12-8-1976 in Village Hassan Khan, P.S. Hassan, District Jhang. The report was lodged by Muhammad Siddiq P.W.8 (brother of the deceased) at 5 p.m. on the same evening which was recorded by Muhammad S. I. (P.W.16).

3. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be a dispute for the possession of land from which a date tree was alleged to have been cut by the accused party. The complainant party; which claimed the piece of land treated the aforesaid tree as their own, is said to have enraged over this act on the part of the accused party and therefore attacked them. All the 12 accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, who acquitted Nawaz and Haq Nawaz, convicted Ahmad and Zulfiqar under section 302/149, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to death and the rest of the accused were convicted under section 302 / 149, P . P . C . and sentenced to imprisonment for life each.

4. The convicted-accused filed an appeal before the High Court which vide the impugned judgment altered the conviction of Ahmad and Zulfiqar petitioners from section 302, P.P.C. to one under section 304-I, P.P.C. and reduced their sentence from death to that imprisonment for life. The sentence of imprisonment of the remaining 8 co-accused was altered to that already undergone by them.

5. The aforementioned co-accused appear to have been satisfied with the reduction in their sentences but the present petitioners have filed this petition for leave to appeal before this Court.

6. The main contention of the petitioners' counsel urged before us was that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners was excessive and may be reduced. We are, however, not persuaded to do so, because we are of the view that in the circumstances of this case they have already been dealt with leniently. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M . Z . M Petition dismissed.