1988 PLP 62 (SCMR)
NIAMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 62 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NIAMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 62 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 62 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 62 (SCMR) (NIAMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 4th August, 1987.
- Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 5th May 1982 in Criminal Revision No. 188 of 1982).
Ss. 302, 304 & 324 --Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)- Petition for enhancement of sentence/ retrial of accused--Accused charged under S. 302, P.P.C. for murdering his wife--Trial Court having considered prosecution as well as defence version by putting them in juxtaposition, believed defence version that accused had killed his wife under grave and sudden provocation when he lost his control on seeing deceased indulging in immoral activity--Reasons advanced for arriving at such conclusion found not inconsistent with circumstances of case--No case having been made out for interference, leave to appeal was refused. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Niamat Khan complainant-petitioner against the judgment of the trial Court by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore for not convicting and sentencing Muhammad Yaqub respondent of a charge under section 302, P.P.C., and has prayed for his retrial. Muhammad Yaqub respondent was tried for offences under section 302/307, P.P.C. but the trial Court convicted him under section 304, P.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' R.I. plus fine. He was further convicted under section 324, P.P.C. on two counts and sentenced to three months' R.I. on each count. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Niamat Khan complainant-petitioner thereupon challenged the judgment of the trial Court in the form of criminal revision before the Lahore High Court, Lahore in which he had prayed that the sentence awarded to Muhammad Yaqub respondent under section 304, P.P.C. should be enhanced to life imprisonment and that the sentence under section 324, P.P.C. awarded to him should also be enhanced. This criminal revision was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Hence the present petition. It was argued by the learned counsel that there was no justification on the part of the trial Court for having not convicting and sentencing Muhammad Yaqub respondent under section 302 and that, therefore, he should be retried. It was pointed out to the learned counsel that he had prayed for retrial of the respondent only in his petition for leave to appeal in this Court whereas before the High Court in his criminal revision his prayer was only for enhancement of the sentences awarded to the respondent under section 304/324, P.P.C. In this case the trial Court had considered the prosecution as well as defence versions by putting them in juxtaposition and arrived at the conclusion that the defence version was the correct version of the occurrence. The respondent had murdered his wife Mst. Rashida under grave and sudden provocation and the finding of the High Court is that the reasons advanced by the trial Court for arriving a this conclusion was not inconsistent with the circumstances of the case. Thus the respondent had lost his control on seeing the deceased indulging in immoral activity. We have heard learned counsel at some length but in our view no case is made out for interference. The result is that this petition is dismissed. M.I./N-31/S Petition dismissed.