1988 PLP 128 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 128 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 128 (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 128 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 128 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 24th February, 1987 in Murder Reference No. 162 of 1983 and Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1983).
Ss. 302 & 300, Exception 1--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave . to appeal, grant of--Well-settled principles of administration of criminal justice--Appeal against conviction under 5.302, P.P.C.--Testimony of interested witnesses lacking corroboration--Acquittal of co-accused on same ocular evidence- Defence version though reasonably probable, not considered properly--Minor age of petitioner at time of occurrence--Leave to appeal granted in order to find out if conclusion arrived at by Courts below in circumstances of case was in accordance with well-settled principles of administration of criminal justice. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Boota petitioner who alongwith two others was tried on a charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. but the trial Court acquitted the two co-accused namely Muhammad Shafi and Riaz Ahmad while convicting the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. and sentencing him to death plus fine. However, he was acquitted of the charge under sections 307/34, P.P.C. On appeal a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore maintained his conviction and sentence. The name of the deceased is Muhammad Ibrahim and the injured person is Mst. Rabia Bibi wife of the deceased. The occurrence took place at 8/9 a.m. on 6 September, 1981 in village Ibbanwali Kalan district Gujranwala. The petitioner was arrested on 8 September, 1981 and at his instance was recovered human blood-stained knife on 14 September 1981. The prosecution has produced two eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Sardar P.W. first paternal-cousin of the deceased and Mst. Rabia Bibi injured P.W. wife of the deceased. Mst. Rabia Bibi P.W. had one simple injury on her person whereas the deceased had four injuries out of which three were caused with sharp-edged weapon and two were grievous which led to his death. The motive was that the petitioner had grappled with the son of the deceased a day before the occurrence when the buffalo of the deceased strayed into the field of the petitioner. According to the prosecution story in the light of the statement of the deceased himself recorded by the police while he was still alive. The deceased was present alongwith his son Mahmood in his field cutting fodder. The petitioner came there and abused Mahmood. Then they grappled. He advanced forward to separate them. In the meantime the co-accused of the petitioner came there armed with stick and hatchet. On seeing them Mahmood ran to his house to bring a Sota but the three of them launched an attack on the deceased. The petitioner took out a knife and inflicted two injuries on his abdomen and chest. Then the two co-accused also caused injuries to him. Mst. Rabia Bibi P.W. his wife who was present in the nearby cotton field was attracted to the scene of crime and came there. At that time Muhammad Shafi co-accused threw a brick at her and injured her. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two eye-witnesses in the instant case were close relatives of the deceased and they are therefore interested witnesses and that their testimony should have not been accepted without corroboration. It was argued that the same ocular testimony had been disbelieved in respect of the acquitted co-accused. Therefore, it should not have been relied upon in the case of the petitioner particularly in the light of his own version of the occurrence. It was submitted that the defence version was reasonably probable and it has not been considered properly. According to the learned counsel the defence plea to the effect that grave and sudden provocation was caused to the petitioner by the deceased when he slapped his mother and furthermore when he tried to strangulate her. In such circumstances it was a case covered by Exception 1 to section 300, P.P.C. It was also argued that the petitioner was only 16 years old at the time of the occurrence. The arguments raised by the learned counsel require further examination, in order to find out if the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below in the circumstances of this case was in accordance with the well-settled principles of administration of criminal justice, Leave to appeal is hereby granted. M.I./M-232/S Leave granted.