1983 PCr (PLP)
SANATTA‑Petitioner Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | SANATTA‑Petitioner Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PCr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PCr (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: 1983 PCr (PLP) (SANATTA‑Petitioner Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar and Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑--S. 426‑Sentence, suspension of‑Trial Court disbelieving pro secution evidence and basing conviction on statement of petitioner without accepting it in its entirety ‑Question whether trial Court justified in excluding exculpatory part of statement requiring serious consideration‑Sentence suspended in circumstances. Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous in Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1981, decided on 31st August, 1981. ‑‑‑--S. 426‑Sentence, suspension of‑Trial Court disbelieving pro secution evidence and basing conviction on statement of petitioner without accepting it in its entirety ‑Question whether trial Court justified in excluding exculpatory part of statement requiring serious consideration‑Sentence suspended in circumstances. Raja Muhammad Anwar and Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the State. This is an application on behalf of Sanatta appellant under section 426, Cr. P. C. for the. suspension of the execution of his sentence. Be was convicted under section 304; Part I, P.P.C.. by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang and sentenced to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5.000 or in default of payment of fine to further R.I. for two years. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the learned trial Court in pares. Nos. 15 and 16, after having disbelieved the prosecution evince ha based conviction on the statement of the appellant without accepting it in its entirety. The question whether in the circumstance, the trial Court was justified in excluding exculpatory part of the statement of the appellant needs serious consideration. Execution of the sentence is, therefore suspended and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the suns of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Chiniot. M.Y.M. Bail granted.