SCMR 1983

1983 PLP 38 (SCMR)

GHULAM RAZAAQ SHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
--Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 366 & 376- Abduction-Rape-Petitioner's counsel only wishing to reappraise evidence-Petitioner (a peer) alleged to have used his influence on prosecutrix, deceitfully abducting her, keeping her in ''confinement and subjecting her to sexual intercourse without her consent No ground made out for reappraisal of evidence-Case, held, not fit for interference by way of granting leave to appeal.--Abduction Rape.
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 103 of 1982, decided on 27th 1982.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1983 PLP 38 (SCMR)
Forum / Court --Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 366 & 376- Abduction-Rape-Petitioner's counsel only wishing to reappraise evidence-Petitioner (a peer) alleged to have used his influence on prosecutrix, deceitfully abducting her, keeping her in ''confinement and subjecting her to sexual intercourse without her consent No ground made out for reappraisal of evidence-Case, held, not fit for interference by way of granting leave to appeal.--Abduction Rape.
Bench Members N/A
Parties GHULAM RAZAAQ SHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 38 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 38 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the --Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 366 & 376- Abduction-Rape-Petitioner's counsel only wishing to reappraise evidence-Petitioner (a peer) alleged to have used his influence on prosecutrix, deceitfully abducting her, keeping her in ''confinement and subjecting her to sexual intercourse without her consent No ground made out for reappraisal of evidence-Case, held, not fit for interference by way of granting leave to appeal.--Abduction Rape. bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 38 (SCMR) (GHULAM RAZAAQ SHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing : 27th April, 1982.
  • Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 3rd February, 1982 in Cr. R. 571/81). --Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 366 & 376- Abduction-Rape-Petitioner's counsel only wishing to reappraise evidence-Petitioner (a peer) alleged to have used his influence on prosecutrix, deceitfully abducting her, keeping her in ''confinement and subjecting her to sexual intercourse without her consent No ground made out for reappraisal of evidence-Case, held, not fit for interference by way of granting leave to appeal.--[Abduction Rape].

Judgment & Decree

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑‑.The petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑2‑1982 dismissing the petitioner's criminal appeal in a case under section 366/376, P .P. C.

2. The allegation against the petitioner, who is a peer is that he misused his influence on the prosecutrix Mst. Rasoolan, deceitfully abducted her, and took her to Burewala. He kept her in confinement for five months during which period he also subjected her to sexual intercourse without her consent. The trial Court convicted him for the said offence. It sentenced him to three years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000, under section 366, P. P. C. or in default six months' R. I. and four years' R. 1. with a fine of Rs. 2,000 under section 376, P. P. C. and in default six months' R.

1. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judg ment. Hence the present petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He only wants us to reappraise the evidence for which he had not made out any go ground. We do not consider this a fit case for interference by way of grant ing Leave to Appeal. The petition is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.