1989 PLP 2826 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2826 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2826 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2826 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2826 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 304-A--Evidence, appreciation of--Nothing on record to suggest false involvement of accused by witnesses--Prima facie, miscarriage of justice had taken place by taking lenient view in sentencing accused for only one year's imprisonment--Defence evidence not inspiring confidence--Interference in conviction and sentence declined and suo motu notice issued to show cause as to why sentence awarded to accused should not be enhanced in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 304-A--Evidence, appreciation of--Nothing on record to suggest false involvement of accused by witnesses--Prima facie, miscarriage of justice had taken place by taking lenient view in sentencing accused for only one year's imprisonment--Defence evidence not inspiring confidence--Interference in conviction and sentence declined and suo motu notice issued to show cause as to why sentence awarded to accused should not be enhanced in circumstances. Mahmood Khan for Petitioner. The petitioner was tried by a Magistrate on the charge under section 304-A, P.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 11-10-1984, the learned Magistrate, found the petitioner guilty on. the said charge and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000 or in default to suffer another term of six months' R.I. An appeal was taken against the aforesaid judgment and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence from two years to one year's R.I. and similarly the fine was also reduced from Rs.15,000 to Rs.10,000. This revision is directed against both the aforesaid judgment and P.W.4 urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact, it was someone else. who was driving the wagon and the petitioner has been falsely roped in. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the defence evidence in this case was more reliable. I have perused the record and both the judgments. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail, inasmuch as, one of the D.Ws. entered in the .witness-box who was directed to do so by an Advocate. Similarly, the statement of the other D.W. also does not inspire confidence and the said testimony was rightly rejected by the Courts below. Adverting to the prosecution case, the eye-witnesses have been produced who were following the petitioner on a bicycle, when they were going to Chhanga Manga. Nothing has been brought on the record to suggest that the prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner. In fact he has been dealt with leniently. In my view, prima facie, miscarriage of justice has taken place by sentencing the petitioner to suffer only one year's R.I. Accordingly, in exercise of suo motu powers, a notice is hereby issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why sentence awarded to him be not enhanced. In view of the order passed on 2-4-1988, this revision petition stand disposed of. SA./M-1266/L