1984 PLP 445 (SCMR)
KHAN MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD KHAN alias KALU-Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 445 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD KHAN alias KALU-Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 445 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 445 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 445 (SCMR) (KHAN MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD KHAN alias KALU-Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Agha Aziz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 19th December, 1982..
- Ch. Ghulam Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz (absent) for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15-12-1978 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82-75/BWP).
Art. 185(3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34--Leave granted to accused for re-appraisal of evidence-Supreme Court in reappraisal of evidence finding that High Court was justified in maintaining con viction and upholding sentence-Appeal dismissed.-{Evidence]. Ch. Ghulam Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz (absent) for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑This is a Jail Appeal by Khan Muhammad against his conviction and sentence under section 302, P. P. C. He was accused alongwith Shah Behram, Shah Muhammad and Imam Ali, for the murder of Alam Din. Imam Ali, who absconded after the concurrence was declared as a proclaimed offender. As such the case of the remaining accused including the appellant was separated and they were tried separately. The learned trial Court (Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur) convicted all three of them under section 302/34, P. P. C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to further undergo one year's R. I.
2. All the three filed an appeal before the High Court, which acquitted Shah Muhammad, but dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide the impugn ed judgment. He filed a petition for leave to appeal through Jail and leave was granted to him by this Court on 2‑7‑1978 for reappraisal of evidence.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned State counsel who have taken us through the relevant petition of the evidence on the record After reappraising the evidence we are of the considered view that the High Court was justified in maintaining the conviction and upholding the sentence of Khan Muhammad appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. M. Z. M. Appeal dismissed.