1979 PLP 270 (SCMR)
FAQIR MOHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus AKBAR ETC.‑Respondents
| Citation | 1979 PLP 270 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---S. 426‑Sentence, suspension of‑Sentence of life imprisonment on respondent suspended by High Court on ground of plea of self‑defence needing examination in view of fairly large number of injuries sustained on accused's side and such having not been explained by prosecution‑Contention, however, being that plea of self‑defence stands negatived on account of blood‑stained earth being recovered from land of deceased showing him an aggressor‑High Court, held, does not appear to have exercised discretion improperly in facts and circum stances of case.‑Sentence‑Bail. |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq, C. J., Muhammad Haleem and G. Safdar Shah, JJ |
| Parties | FAQIR MOHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus AKBAR ETC.‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 270 (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 1979 PLP 270 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---S. 426‑Sentence, suspension of‑Sentence of life imprisonment on respondent suspended by High Court on ground of plea of self‑defence needing examination in view of fairly large number of injuries sustained on accused's side and such having not been explained by prosecution‑Contention, however, being that plea of self‑defence stands negatived on account of blood‑stained earth being recovered from land of deceased showing him an aggressor‑High Court, held, does not appear to have exercised discretion improperly in facts and circum stances of case.‑Sentence‑Bail. bench comprising: Anwarul Haq, C. J., Muhammad Haleem and G. Safdar Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 270 (SCMR) (FAQIR MOHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus AKBAR ETC.‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. A. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by C. M. Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Nasim Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 1978.
- Iftikhar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advo cate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 24th August 1977 in Cr. Misc. No. 1 of 1977 in Cr. A. No. 702 of 1977).
S. 426‑Sentence, suspension of‑Sentence of life imprisonment on respondent suspended by High Court on ground of plea of self‑defence needing examination in view of fairly large number of injuries sustained on accused's side and such having not been explained by prosecution‑Contention, however, being that plea of self‑defence stands negatived on account of blood‑stained earth being recovered from land of deceased showing him an aggressor‑High Court, held, does not appear to have exercised discretion improperly in facts and circum stances of case.‑[Sentence‑Bail]. Iftikhar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advo cate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated the 24th August, 1977, whereby the sentences of life imprisonment awarded to the respondents herein, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, were suspended, subject to their furnishing bail in the sum of Rs. 22,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sahiwal. The main reason given by the High Court is that the plea of self defence needed examination in view of the fairly large number of injuries sustained by the side of the accused, which had not been explained by the prosecution. Mr. S. A. Saeed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the plea of self‑defence stands negatived by the fact that blood stained earth was recovered from the land of the deceased, thus clearly indicating that the accused were the aggressors. He contends that the trial Court bad given good reasons for recording a conviction under section 302, P. P. C. We do not think it proper to embark upon a detailed examination of the case at this stage. Suffice it to say that the learned Judge in the High Court does not appear to have exercised his discretion improper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed