1999 PLP 2525 (YLR)
WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2525 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2525 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2525 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2525 (YLR) (WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sher Afghan Khattak for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1999.
- Mr. Sher Afghan Khattak, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant and Kh. Azhar Rashhid learned Assistant Advocate- General for the State present and heard. Record of the case perused carefully.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.308‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence ‑‑‑ Trial Court had assessed the prosecution evidence properly and after discussing the same alongwith the case‑law produced before it, had given valid reasons for its conclusion‑‑ No misreading or non‑reading by the Court could be pointed out‑‑‑Impugned judgment was well founded and did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity and was not susceptible to arty interference‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused were maintained accordingly. Kh. Azhar Rashid, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 19th March, 1999. Mr. Sher Afghan Khattak, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant and Kh. Azhar Rashhid learned Assistant Advocate- General for the State present and heard. Record of the case perused carefully.
2. The appellant stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 302, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.46, dated 31‑5‑1997 registered at Police Station, Leavy Post, Malakand Agency.
3. There is hardly any need to give the detail of the case in hand, because the same has been elaborately given by the Sessions Judge/Zila Qazi, Malakand at Batkhela (Mr. Miftahuddin Khan) in his judgment recorded on 14‑9‑1998.
4. In this unfortunate incident the appellant Wali Muhammad shot dead his young son, namely, Wasal Muhammad. The mother of the deceased i.e., wife of the accused/appellant reported the matter to the police, which formed the basis of the F.I. R. 4‑A. After conducting the usual police investigation complete challan against the appellant‑accused was submitted in the trial Court. At the end of the trial, the appellant was found guilty and was convicted under section 308, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo to 4 years' imprisonment. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,15,000 to the complainant as "Diyat".
5. Dissatisfied with the verdict of the trial Court, the appellant has filed this appeal from the jail.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to convince me that the judgment impugned herein is either arbitrary or perverse. Similarly he could not establish that the same was the result of non‑reading or misreading of evidence.
7. In the circumstances, therefore, I am of the considered view that the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. The trial Court has assessed/appreciated the prosecution evidence and after discussing the same, alongwith the case‑law produced before it, has given valid reasons for its conclusion. The trial Court has committed no illegality /material irregularity and its judgment is well founded. Accordingly I am not inclined to interfere with the verdict so recorded.
8. This appeal is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./316/P