1969 PLP 382 (SCMR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 382 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 382 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 382 (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: 1969 PLP 382 (SCMR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Hakeem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 5th May 1959.
- M. H. Khandker, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nandalal Das, Attorney for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of East Pakistan at Dacca, dated the 3rd July 1956, in Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1956):
Ss. 302 &.304, Part II‑,Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider whether Judge in awarding sentence could proceed on the view that offence committed was murder and for that reason maximum sentence under S. 304, Part If, P. P. C. should be given. M. H. Khandker, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nandalal Das, Attorney for the State.
Judgment & Decree
A. Hakeem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. M. H. Khandker, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nandalal Das, Attorney for the State. Date of hearing : 5th May 1959. MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C. J.‑In this case leave to appeal was given to consider the questions :‑ (1) whether the address to the jury was full and accurate? (2) whether the verdict of the jury was in accordance with the address, and (3) whether the Judge in awarding the sentence could proceed on the view that the offence committed was murder and that for that reason the maximum sentence under section 304, Part II, P. P. C. should be given? We have now heard Mr. Hakeem at length, but do not feel called upon to interfere either with the conviction or with the sentence. All that Mr. Hakeem has been able to say is that the charge suffered from a material omission because no reference was made by the learned trial Judge to the evidence of Md. Lutfar Rahman (P. W. 6) who states that sometime after the firing he saw one of the police constables running alone and three others including the appellant in a group. Apparently, the witness is deposing to what he saw after the murder had been committed and his evidence does not necessarily show that the appellant was not alone when he fired at the deceased. It is true that the reasons which have been given by the learned Sessions Judge for awarding the maximum sentence, if true, would make the offence amount to murder. But having con sidered the circumstances of the case, we do not think that the sentence actually awarded is really excessive. The appeal is therefore dismissed.