2003 PLP 494 (SCMR)
SULTAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 494 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 494 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 494 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 494 (SCMR) (SULTAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Masood Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 26‑9‑2000 passed in Criminal Appeal 366 of 1996 and Murder Reference No. 318 of 1997). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.302(b)/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Sentence‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to accused by Supreme Court to consider the contention that he being minor of the age of about 13 years at the time of incident and the alleged motive having not been proved by the prosecution, he was entitled to lesser punishment. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J. ‑‑‑Petitioners Sultan and Muhammad Iqbal have assailed the judgment dated 26‑9‑2000 of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby, the appeal of petitioners was dismissed and their conviction and sentence of death was maintained and Murder Reference was also decided in the affirmative. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Iqbal alias Balla was minor at the time of incident. In his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. this petitioner had produced School Leaving Certificate according to which he was born on 15‑2‑1976 thus on the date of incident, he was about 13 years of age and was, therefore, entitled to lesser punishment. Learned counsel further argued that prosecution has not been able to prove the motive so much so that the main witness namely Mst. Karam Ellahi, a witness of the alleged motive, was not examined and was given up without any justification. In such circumstances, learned counsel urged that he will not press this petition on merits but will advance arguments only on the quantum of sentence if leave to appeal is granted. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted to consider the above points. N.H.Q./S‑225/S Leave granted.