1988 PLP 236 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 236 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, S.A.Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 236 (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 236 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, S.A.Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 236 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Wahiduddin Virk, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 1987.
- Gulzar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 29-6-1982 passed in M.R.No.168/81 & Cr.A.144/81).
Ss.302 & 326 read with Ss.148 & 149--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Accused convicted and sentenced to death High Court, on appeal, finding that prosecution had established its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt acquitting them of the charge of murder and instead finding them guilty under S.326, P.P.C. and awarding 10 years' R.I. to each--Leave to appeal granted to examine question whether in facts and circumstances of the case, alteration of sentence from death to 10 years' R.I. was not justified in law. Gulzar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S.A.NUSRAT, J.--The respondents were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, for the murder of Muhammad Fazil during an occurrence, which had taken place on 25-7-1980 at the Bhani of Muhammad Ashraf, Chak No.66-M. Tehsil Shuja Abad and were convicted under section 302/149, P.P,C. and sentenced to death with fine. They were also convicted under section 148, P.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. each with fine. On appeal filed by the respondents, the learned High Court found that the prosecution had established its case against them beyond any shadow of doubt. However, they were acquitted of the charge of murder and instead were found guilty under section 326/149, P.P.C. and awarded 10 years R.I. each and fine. 2. It was contended on behalf of the complainant/ petitioner that having found that the prosecution had proved its case, the normal penalty of death should have been awarded to the respondents under section 302/149, P.P,C., as ordered by the trial Court and their acquittal of the charge of murder was not based on sound principles of law. It was contended that the respondents were armed with deadly weapons and way laid the deceased while sitting in ambush. According to the learned counsel, the High Court was not justified in holding that the incident of exchange of abuses was not of such a nature for which the respondents would have formed an unlawful assembly to murder the deceased. It was further pointed out that the learned High Court had erred in describing the two injuries on the parietal region of Muhammad Fazil deceased as simple in nature. According to the medical evidence, the deceased had suffered 13 injuries at the hands of the respondents of which injury No.4 was on the right parietal area of head while injury No.5 was located on its opposite side. The cause of death was accumulative effect of injuries Nos.1 to 6, which included the aforementioned two injuries located on the head. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel referred to certain decisions of this Court. 3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through impugned judgment, we would grant leave to appeal to examine question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, alteration of sentence from death to 10 years' R.I. each and fine was not justified in law. The respondents shall not be released until the decision of the appeal and the jail authorities be informed accordingly. S.Q./M-264/S Leave granted.