1987 PLP 130 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 130 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 130 (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 130 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 130 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.""
- Date of hearing: 1st November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 12‑6‑1982, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 1979). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 402‑‑Plea of self‑defence carefully considered and rightly rejected by Courts below‑‑Supreme Court declined to reappraise evidence and refused leave to appeal. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners."" Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1986. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J,‑‑Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Aslam petitioners were tried alongwith 3 others, inter alia, for offence under section 302, P.P. C. and were sentenced to death. Their appeal before the High Court failed and their death sentences were confirmed by the High Court. 2.They have now come up to this Court through the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the petitioners counsel at considerable length. The only contention urged by him is that the plea of defence, namely that they committed the murders in exercise of their right of defence of person, had not been correctly considered by the two Courts below.
4. In the first place the contention merely amounts to a request for reappraisal of evidence secondly, after going through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment with the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we feel that the Courts below have carefully considered this contention and have rightly rejected the plea of self‑defence. We therefore, find no merit in the petition, which is consequently dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.