1995 PLP 1149 (SCMR)
Raja SONDHA KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1149 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | Raja SONDHA KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1149 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1149 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1149 (SCMR) (Raja SONDHA KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Sultan Ahmed, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 12‑10‑1993 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Criminal Misc. No. 303/B/1993 in Cr A. No. 183 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑-Suspension of sentence‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑In the light of the material available on record particularly the observation of the Trial Court about the role attributed to accused having not been established, discretionary order passed by High Court suspending his sentence called for no interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Judgment & Decree
Khawaja Sultan Ahmed, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th November, 1993. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J‑‑‑Raja Sondha Khan, petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 12‑10‑1993 whereby petition for suspension of sentence filed by Muhammad Asghar respondent/convict, under sentence of imprisonment for life in a murder case, was allowed.
2. The learned trial Judge while summing up his observations about the role played by Muhammad Asghar respondent No.l herein in para. 25 of his judgment observed as under:‑‑ "In so far as Muhammad Asghar accused is concerned, he is alleged to have caused injuries to Mushtaq Ahmad and Qutab Khan (P.Ws.) They have not been examined by the prosecution. Muhammad Anwar (P.W.14) has stated that he had not seen Muhammad Asghar accused firing. Muhammad Azam P.W. 15 has also stated that he had seen the guns only with Muhammad Akhtar and 7‑afar"alias Muzaffar Iqbal accused. Muhammad Asghar accused has no motive to attempt on the lives of Mushtaq Ahmad and Qutab Khan (P.Ws.). It appears that some stray‑pellets of the fire shot by Muhammad Akhtar accused had hit these two P.Ws. The role attributed to Muhammad Asghar accused does not, therefore, stand established. However, both Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Azam (P.Ws.) have stated that Muhammad Asghar accused was also with War alias (Muzaffar Iqbal and Muhammad Akhtar accused when they had alighted from the land rover." Learned counsel for the, petitioner contends that Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Azam P.Ws. had fully implicated the petitioner and although Mushtaq and Qutab Khan P.Ws. who allegedly suffered injuries at the hands of the petitioner were not examined yet their medico‑legal reports were on the record, therefore, it was not at all a fit case for suspension of sentence.
3. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel in the light of material available on the record particularly the observations of the trial Court reproduced above we do not feel inclined to interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the High Court suspending the sentence of respondent No.l. Consequently this petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./S‑941/S Leave refused.