1985 PLP 797 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 797 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 797 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 797 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 797 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Nazim for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 326/324--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439--Appraisal of evidence--None of findings arrived at by lower Courts found to be open to exception--Recovery of weapon of offence admitted by accused- Accused taking plea of self-defence--Defence plea not accepted by lower Courts--Courts below having appraised evidence in accordance with well-established principles governing the subject--Appraisal of evidence, declined and conviction maintained in circumstances.
S.326/324--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 Accused remaining in ,jail for different terms during trial and after conviction- Accused also receiving injuries during occurrence--Imprisonment already undergone, Weld, would meet ends of justice--Sentence of three years reduced to one already undergone. C.M. Latif for A.-G. for the-State.
Judgment & Decree
This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-10-1984 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner assailing his conviction recorded under sections 326 and 324, P.P.C. was rejected.
2. The petitioner was tried by the Senior Civil Judge/ Magistrate Section 30, Sialkot and was found guilty. The learned trial Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for a period of three years on charge under section 326, P.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default to undergo six months' R.I. On the second charge under section 324, P.P.C. the petitioner was sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default 6 months' R.I. The learned trial Magistrate further directed that the fine, if realised, half of it shall be paid to the injured prosecution witnesses.
3. The contention raised by the learned counsel relates to the appraisal of the evidence. I have carefully gone through the record of this case and the statements of the witnesses and the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. None of the findings arrived at is open to exception. The petitioner had inflicted Chhuri blows which was recovered and the recovery was also admitted. The petitioner had pleaded that he had caused these injuries in exercise of the right of self-defence. It is, however, pertinent to mention that according to the record the petitioner had also received nine injuries on his person.
4. Be that as it may, this is a case in which I cannot interfere in the appraisal of the evidence because the same has been done in accordance with well-established principles governing the subject.
5. Lastly the learned counsel argued that the sentences were severe, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel. In this case the petitioner was arrested on 16-5-1977 and was allowed bail on 9-7-1977. The petitioner was convicted on 15-11-1981 by the learned trial Magistrate, his sentence was suspended by the appellate Court on 6-12-1981. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed on 2-10-1984 and since then he is in jail, Considering all the circum stances of the case, particularly in view of the injuries received by the petitioner, in my view, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone would meet the ends of justice and I order accordingly.
6. However, the, question of fine, requires consideration. I would direct that the petitioner shall now pay in all Rs. 300 as fine instead of Rs. 1,
500. He shall be released after the deposit of fine and the same shall be paid to the injured prosecution witnesses.
7. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. S.A: Petition dismissed.