SCMR 1987

1987 PLP 281 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 134 of 1985, decided on 14th December, 1986.
Honorable Judges
Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1987 PLP 281 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑Petitioners 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 1987 PLP 281 (SCMR)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 281 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 281 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

Representation

  • M . B . Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by S . Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
  • Date of hearing: 14th December, 1986.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 11‑2‑1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1982) . ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302134‑‑Conviction and sentence of death‑‑Co‑accused father and uncle of petitioners acquitted by trial Court having not participated in occurrence‑‑Plea that petitioners might have killed deceased under influence of their father and uncle, repelled being merely conjectural‑‑Incident being a preconcerted murder in cold blood, Supreme Court declined to interfere with sentence imposed‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1986. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal by Muhammad Iqbal and his brother Zulfiqar who together with their father and uncle were tried by the Sessions Judge at Vehari for an offence under section 302, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Hakim Ali deceased. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted their father and uncle but convicted them under section 302, read with section 34, and sentenced them to death. The High Court dismissed their appeal and confirmed the sentences of death awarded to them.

2. According to the prosecution, on 25‑3‑1986 just before sunrise the deceased was returning from his land with his uncle Ghulam Farid (P.W.9). When he reached near the village mosque the petitioners together with their father and uncle surprised him. The petitioners were armed with hatchets. They abused the deceased and attacked him with hatchets. The deceased died at the spot. Apart from Ghulam Farid (P.W.9) the occurrence was also witnessed by Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.10) and Talib Hussain (P.W.8). After the occurrence Ghulam Farid (P.W.9) lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Borewala at 8‑30 in the morning. The police station was ten miles away from the spot.

3. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be an incident which took place a month and a half earlier when the deceased castigated the petitioners for teasing his niece.

4. The post‑mortem examination of the deceased revealed that he had received eight injuries. Six of these had been caused by sharp‑edged weapons and were located in the regions of head, face and chest. According to the doctor, two of the injuries located on the head were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined three eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. They deposed that they had seen the two petitioners giving hatchet blows to the deceased. Their testimony was believed by the trial Court as well as the High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had not been able to point out any defect in their testimony or any other factor which would destroy their credibility. Considering the location of the injuries and the weapons employed by the petitioners to inflict injuries on the deceased, the High Court and the Sessions Judge were justified in convicting them of an offence under section 302, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on the prosecution's own showing the petitioner's father and uncle were also present at the time of occurrence; that being so, the possibility could not be ruled out that they had caused the death of Hakim Ali under the influence of their elders. It is difficult to accept this contention The High Court and the Court of Sessions have found that the father and uncle of the petitioners had not participated in the occurrence and have acquitted them on this ground. That being so, the plea that the petitioners might have killed the deceased under the influence of their father and uncle is merely conjectural. It was a preconcerted murder in cold blood. We find no reason to interfere with the sentences imposed upon the petitioners. The petition is dismissed. M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.