1985 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nisar Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th November, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 325/34‑‑Only injured prosecution witness receiving as many as five injuries out of which one injury on left forearm declared grievous‑ Radiologist not produced to prove X‑Ray‑‑Conviction and sentence under S.325/34, Penal Code, set aside. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ‑‑‑S. 325/324/34‑‑Accused causing hurt with Dang, which used as a weapon of offence, likely to cause death‑‑Accused convicted under 5.324, Penal Code and awarded six months rigorous imprisonment in view of number and nature of injuries and part played by him. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ‑‑‑S. 325/324/34‑‑Accused causing hurt with Dang, which used as a weapon of offence, likely to cause death‑‑Accused convicted under 5.324, Penal Code and awarded six months rigorous imprisonment in view of number and nature of injuries and part played by him. Ch. Nisar Ahmad for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 13th November, 1984. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Muhammad Ramzan and Noora were tried by Magistrate 1st Class, Samundari, District Faisalabad who vide his order dated 22‑12‑1983 convicted them under section 325/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to two years' R.I. each. The appeal filed by them failed on 17‑10‑1984, hence this revision.
2. While conceding that the injured witnesses had received injuries at the hands of the petitioners, the learned counsel challenged the nature of the offences. He submitted that the Radiologist was not examined to prove the X‑Ray, therefore, the petitioners could nut have been convicted under section 325/34, P.P.C. No one has appeared for State to oppose this revision.
3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 1 find that Yousaf the only injured P.W. of the case received as many as five injuries out of which injury No.3 on left forearm has been declared grievous. Since the Radiologist has nut been produced to prove the X‑Ray therefore the conviction of the petitioners under section 325/34, P.P.C. is liable to be set aside. Instead they are convicted under section 324, P.P.C. because they caused hurt with Dang which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause the death.
4. This brings me to the question of sentence. In view of the number and nature of the injuries and the part played by the petitioners I am of the view that sentence of six months' R.I. each, would meet the case. Order accordingly. M.Y.H. Petition partly accepted.