2004 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL JABBAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL JABBAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL JABBAR — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)
Accused had been ascribed an injury to the deceased-- Contentions raised on behalf of accused required deeper appreciation of evidence which was neither permissible nor desirable at such stage, lest it might prejudice the case of either party at the final hearing of appeal-- Petition for suspension of sentence of accused was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Jabbar, the applicant through the instant petition has sought for suspension of his sentence and admitting him to bail pending the disposal of the aforementioned appeal against the judgment dated 28-5-2002, recorded by Mr. Javaid Iqbal Warraich, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, whereby he has convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life as Tazir and to pay Rs.50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased by way of compensation as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and -in default to suffer further three months' S.I. in case F.I.R. No.25 dated 29-1-2001 registered with Police Station Danewal, Tehsil and District Vehari.
2. It has been contended on his behalf that there is no mention in the F.I.R. and the prosecution evidence of the weapon of offence carried by him at the time of occurrence; that even no weapon was recovered from him; that no motive has been ascribed to him; that no witness from the locality has been cited or produced by the prosecution to support it's case against them; that medical evidence is also not in line with the ocular account; that it was a blind murder; and that he was declared innocent by the police and so deserves release on bail by suspending his sentence.
3. On the other hand; the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he has been attributed injury to the deceased and so his active role in occurrence was there; and that there is sufficient evidence on record to connect him with the crime.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
5. He has been ascribed injury to the deceased. The contentions raised on his behalf in fact require deeper appreciation of evidence, which is neither permissible nor desirable at this stage lest it may prejudice the case of either parties at the final hearing or decision of the appeal. I, therefore, have not been persuaded to suspend his sentence. The petition; therefore, is dismissed. N.H. Q./A-905/L Petition dismissed.