1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Abdul Waheed, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Abdul Waheed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.B. Zaman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Sentence, suspension of‑‑Accused sentenced to life imprisonment‑‑Only proverbial Lalkara attributed to accused‑‑No overt act by accused nor he had any motive against accused Sentence suspended and bail granted in circumstances. Muhammad Arshad Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑This is a petition for the suspension of sentence on behalf of Muhammad Aslam, petitioner who has been convicted under section 302/34 of the P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,
000. His co‑accused, Muhammad Sarwar was also convicted for the same offence and sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court and a fine of Rs.20,
000. They were tried alongwith five others who were acquitted. The role attributed to the petitioner was that he raised a Lalkara that Allah Ditta, deceased should not be allowed to go alive upon which his co‑convict fired a pistol shot at him which resulted in his death.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that except a proverbial Lalkara, no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and he has not been shown to have any motive against the deceased. This contention is not controverted by learned counsel for the State. He has, however, opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner was convicted only two months back.
3. We have perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is borne out from the record. Accordingly, we admit him to bail in the sum of Rs. one lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Samundri. S. A. M‑694/L Bail allowed.