1968 SCMR 327 (PLP)
JUMA alias MUFTI-Petitioner Versus Tate STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 327 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | JUMA alias MUFTI-Petitioner Versus Tate STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 327 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 327 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 327 (PLP) (JUMA alias MUFTI-Petitioner Versus Tate STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mohammad Jaffar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mohammad Medhi Anwar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, dated the 2nd November 1967, in Criminal Appeal No, 91 of 1967/Murder Reference No. 28 of 1967). Penal Code (AV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 300-Plea that accused fired at deceased who was aiming hatchet blow at him in order to get his goats released by accused-Singeing around the wounds of deceased belying fact that shot was fired from so close a range as to permit deceased to aim hatchet blow at accused-Plea of self-defence, in circumstance, held rightly rejected by High Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J. -The petitioner, Juma and one Safdar, were convicted under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the trial Judge and sentenced respectively to death and transportation for life. On appeal and reference to the High Court of West Pakistan, Safdar was acquitted and the conviction of the petitioner was upheld, though his sentence was reduced to that of transportation for life. He now seeks special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. The petitioner admitted having shot dead the deceased, but raised a plea of self-defence. He had rounded up a flock of goats, belonging to the complainant party which were trespassing into his master's field and was proceeding to take them to the pond when, it is alleged, that the deceased Allahyar, accompanied by his brothers, Moulidad and Gulab, came up from behind, all armed with hatchets. Allahyar challenged the petitioner to stop and leave the goats. He refused to do so. He was then abused and attacked with the hatchet. When he came near the petitioner and was aiming the hatchet blow at him, the petitioner fired at him to save himself. This plea has been examined in the Courts below and rejected on, what seem to us to be cogent grounds. According to the medical evidence, there was no singeing around the wounds of the deceased and it is therefore, quite clear that A the shot was not fired at such close range as to permit the deceased to aim a hatchet blow at the petitioner at the relevant time. The P. Ws. have denied that any such incident happened. According to their version, the petitioner fired at the deceased who was merely entreating for his goats to be released. This finding is based on good evidence on record and no good ground has been shown for re-appraisal of that evidence by this Court. The argument raised by Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, that the eye-witnesses were not dis-interested in the case, does not appear to rest on any solid foundation. All that the learned counsel refers to is litigation between them and the relatives of the petitioner's master. This, by no means, establishes that the eye witnesses bad any grudge against the petitioner. No case has been made out for grant, of special leave to appeal and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.