1993 PLP 1990 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1990 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860).‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1990 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860).‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1990 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1990 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 1993.
- Asghar Rokhri; Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
- Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29‑9‑1992 in Cr. Appeal No. 612 of 1988). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 302/34 & 307/34‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code ‑(V of 1898), 5.345‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Compromise‑‑‑Heirs of the deceased acknowledged to have received Rs.100,000 by way of compensation from the accused‑‑‑State counsel had no objection if the compromise was given effect‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was consequently converted into appeal and the accused were acquitted of the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. accordingly‑‑‑No compromise having been effected between the parties for the offence under S. 307/34, P.P.C. order of acquittal could not affect the accused's conviction on the said charge. Asghar Rokhri; Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 302/34 & 307/34‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code ‑(V of 1898), 5.345‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Compromise‑‑‑Heirs of the deceased acknowledged to have received Rs.100,000 by way of compensation from the accused‑‑‑State counsel had no objection if the compromise was given effect‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was consequently converted into appeal and the accused were acquitted of the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. accordingly‑‑‑No compromise having been effected between the parties for the offence under S. 307/34, P.P.C. order of acquittal could not affect the accused's conviction on the said charge. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Asghar Rokhri; Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 21st June, 1993. SAAR SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The parties have entered into a compromise. The deceased was still unmarried at the time of his death. His father and mother are present in Court. They affirm that a compromise has in fact taken place. Mr. Asghar Rokhri, counsel for the complainant is aiso present on their behalf and knows the parties personally as they all belong to the same village. The father and mother of the deceased acknowledged that they have received Rs 1,00,000 by way of compensation from the petitioners. Counsel for the State has no objection if the compromise is given effect.
2. This petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The convictions of the petitioners on the charge under section 302 read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code, are set aside and they are acquitted.
3. The petitioners were also convicted of the offence under section 307 read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code, for making murderous assault upon Aziz Jehan Khan. There has been no compromise between the parties in respect of this offence. Consequently, this order will not affect the petitioners' conviction in respect of the offence under section 307 read with section
34. N.H.Q./M‑1786/S Order accordingly.