1992 P Cr (PLP)
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ziaul Oamar Bhatti for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 307/34‑‑‑Sentence, quantum of‑‑‑Parties had compromised‑‑‑Occurrence took place in 1982‑‑‑Accused were thrice sent to jail during proceedings and remained in jail for more than one month after their conviction‑‑‑Compromise was a valid ground for leniency in sentence‑‑‑Sentence of 3 years' R.I. Was reduced to one already undergone by accused in circumstances. (b) Sentence‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Compromise was a valid ground for leniency in the sentence. Shaukat Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Compromise was a valid ground for leniency in the sentence. Ziaul Oamar Bhatti for Petitioners. Shaukat Ali for the State. Date of hearing: 29th May, 1991. Munir Hussain and Muhammad Sharif, petitioners, stand convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default thereof three months' R.I.
2. Admitting the criminal liability of the petitioners for the murderous assault on Ghulam Sabir, the learned counsel for the petitioners has requested for reduction in sentence on the ground of compromise between the parties. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since compromise is a valid ground for leniency in sentence even in non‑compoundable offences, so the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is reduced to one already undergone A by them. The occurrence took place in the year 1982. The petitioners were sent to jail thrice. They remained in jail for more than one month after the rejection of their appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge before they could be released on bail in this revision. Disposed of accordingly. SA./M‑3040/L Order accordingly.