1990 PLP 1156 (SCMR)
JAMIL AHMAD and another‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1156 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | JAMIL AHMAD and another‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1156 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1156 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1156 (SCMR) (JAMIL AHMAD and another‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- R.A.Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition 78 of 1988).
- Shah Muhammad Khan Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No.85 of 1988).
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petitions for leave to appeal for enhancement of sentence and against conviction‑‑‑High Court while maintaining conviction and sentence of imprisonment of life awarded to accused by Trial Court on the ground that age of accused was less than seventeen years at time of occurrence and that suspicion in mind of accused regarding illicit relations of deceased with paternal‑aunt of accused was motive of murder‑‑‑No case for enhancement of punishment as prayed for was made out‑‑‑High Court after discussing and taking into consideration entire evidence found that case against accused had been proved beyond doubt‑‑Evidence properly appraised by Courts below, could not be re‑appraised by Supreme Court‑‑‑Petition against conviction also had no merit‑‑‑Petitions for leave to appeal dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Shah Muhammad Khan Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No.85 of 1988). Date of hearing: 18th April, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑The entitled two petitions have been filed by Abdul Ghafoor and Jamil Ahmad respectively. These are against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15‑12‑1987. The former is for enhancement of sentence of Jamil Ahmad who was awarded imprisonment for life plus fine of Rs.20,000 by the trial Court and the High Court on appeal upheld the same. The latter is by the convict (Jamil Ahmad) against his conviction and sentence. The incident which led to the registration of criminal case against Jamil Ahmad took place on 13‑i1‑1983 at 10.30 a.m. in the house of Abdul Ghafoor. The deceased was Hamad Raza son of Abdul Ghafoor. The murder was committed because the deceased was suspected to have illicit relations with the paternal aunt of accused Jamil Ahmad. The High Court gave reasons while maintaining the conviction and sentence of imprisonment of life awarded by the trial Court. Those were the age of the accused he being less than seventeen at the time of occurrence and the other, suspicion in the mind of the accused which was the motive for the murder. We, therefore, don't think any case is made out for enhancement of sentence. So far as the other petition is concerned, the High Court after discussing and taking into consideration the entire evidence found that the case against the convict/petitioner had been proved beyond doubt. The version given by the accused‑petitioner about the incident was not accepted either by the trial Court or by the High Court. We are not prepared to re‑appraise the evidence because that has been properly done by the High Court. There is no merit in this petition as well. The result is that leave is declined in both the petitions which are hereby dismissed. H.B.T./J‑75/S Leave declined.