1993 P Cr (PLP)
ALI BADSHAH and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALI BADSHAH and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (ALI BADSHAH and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Injured eye-witnesses had neither any personal animosity against the accused nor they had any unison with any of their enemies
Conviction of accused was maintained in circumstances-- However, as no specific motive had been alleged by prosecution against accused and the injuries suffered by the prosecution witnesses were simple, substantial reduction was made in their sentences.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.
Ali Badshah (45), Mehrab Gul (45) and Muhammad Shah (70) were tried alongwith seven others, by the Judge, Punjab Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Twenty-five other accused were also tried alongwith them in absentia. Vide judgment, dated 25-6-1991 Ali Badshah, Mehrab Gul and Muhammad Shah were convicted under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each. All the other accused were acquitted ,vide same judgment. Convicts have filed appeal.
2. The occurrence had taken place on 30-1-1990 at 1-00 p.m. at Meat Factory, situated within the revenue limits of Mauza Sikandarabad, within the area of Police Station Daudkhel, District Mianwali. The F.I.R. was lodged at the police station on the same day by Muhammad Iqbal. Two persons who had suffered injuries during the occurrence were also examined at the trial as eye witnesses, alongwith others, which included other eye-witnesses, witnesses of recoveries, the Investigating Officer and the doctor.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset chose, not to challenge the conviction of the appellants. However, he prayed for substantial reduction in the sentences of imprisonment.
4. Notwithstanding the fact that learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction of the appellants, we have gone through the evidence and we are convinced even otherwise that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against them, beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. In that, the two eye-witnesses who had suffered injuries during the occurrence had neither any personal animosity against the appellants nor had they any unison with any of the enemies of the appellants. The conviction of the appellants under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act is, therefore, maintained. However, keeping in view the fact that the prosecution did not allege any specific motive against the appellants, and also keeping in view the fact that the injuries suffered by the only two persons, were found simple, we are inclined to grant the request of learned counsel for reduction of the sentences of the appellants. The sentences of Ali Badshah and Mehrab Gul appellants are reduced to R.I. for 5 years each, plus to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default whereof to suffer R.I. for 3 months each. The sentence of Muhammad Shah appellant is reduced to R.I. for 3 years, plus to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default whereof to suffer R.I. for 3 months, keeping in view his advanced age (he is stated to be seventy at the time of trial). Benefit of the provisions of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be extended to them. N.H.Q./A-349/L Sentence reduced.