2006 PLP 1953 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD WAHEED AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1953 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Chowhan and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WAHEED AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1953 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1953 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Chowhan and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1953 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD WAHEED AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Abdul Jabbar Khan for Petitioners/Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)
Sentence was sought to be suspended on ground that there was clash between ocular evidence and medical evidence as injury found at back of deceased was in fact an exit wound and was not an independent injury as ascribed to accused
Matter as far as petitioner/accused was concerned, was one which required further consideration
Sentence awarded to petitioner/accused was suspended accordingly. Muhammad Afzal and others v. State 1994 SCMR 453 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Moored Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat has handed down this judgment while convicting the petitioner/appellant Muhammad Waheed Akhtar under section 302(b), P.P.C. sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000 and in case of default to undergo 6 months S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner/appellant has now moved this application for suspension of sentence on the ground simplicitor that there was a clash between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, while elucidating his point learned counsel referred to the following portion of the judgment which is reproduced below: "Dildar alias Dudu raised Lalkara that since Nisar Afzal was asked to get effected compromise in between the accused and Khizar Hayat but he did not do so hence he should be taught a lesson. Nisar Afzal (deceased) ran away from the spot towards west. The accused chased him. Gulzar alias Gulla fired at left shin of the deceased. Dildar alias Dudu accused fired straight with his Kalashnikove which hit Nisar Afzal on his left shin. Then Waheed fired at Nisar which hit on his back. After receipt of injuries Nisar Afzal fell down in the Haveli of Muhammad Afzal, Mukhtar alias Mehra fired with 8 mm, rifle which hit the deceased at right side of neck. Then Kashif fired with his .222 bore rifle, which landed on right thigh of the deceased. Nisar Afzal sustained serious injuries."
2. According to Dr. Tahir Naveed, the deceased Sahibzada Nisar Afzal sustained the following injuries:-- 1-A A fire-arm wound of entry 2 x ? c.m. x 2 x 1/2 c.m. with blackening half around it and on right side of neck. Burning 2 c.m. x 7 c.m. on right middle of shoulder. B Fire-arm wound of exit 3 c.m. x 1 /2 c.m. on the back in the middle and right to vertical column at scapular level. 2-A Fire-arm wound of entry 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the lower 1/3 junction on the interior surface on right leg. B. Exit 2-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on the medial surface. 3-A Fire-arm wound of entry 13 c.m. x 6 c.m. on the medial side of left leg below the left knee joint. B Fire-arm wound of exit 13 c.m. x 4 c.m. on the lateral side of left leg on and below the left knee joint.
3. It is said that the injury found at the back of the deceased Sahibzada Nisar Afzal is in fact an exist wound and was not an independent injury ascribed to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Afzal and others v. State 1994 SCMR
453. Consequently the matter as far as the petitioner concerned, is one which requires further consideration. We accordingly suspend the sentence of the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./D-32/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence suspended.