1989 PLP 1493 (SCMR)
Mst. ZOHRA KHATOON Petitioner Versus MEHR KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1493 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Ghulam Mujaddid and Usman |
| Parties | Mst. ZOHRA KHATOON Petitioner Versus MEHR KHAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1493 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1493 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Ghulam Mujaddid and Usman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1493 (SCMR) (Mst. ZOHRA KHATOON Petitioner Versus MEHR KHAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zia Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court abd Manzoor Illahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.l to 3.
- Date of hearing: 20th March, 1989
- M. Aslam Uns, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousuf Khan,
- Advocate‑on‑Record fcr the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 22‑Z‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 1985). ‑‑‑Ss.302 & 325/34‑‑Appreciation ‑of evidence‑‑No premeditation and accused had only resisted the ploughing of the field which if the complainant party had not insisted upon would not have resulted in the transaction‑‑Alteration of conviction of accused from capital charge to one under 5.325/34, P.P.C. was just Petition dismissed. M. Aslam Uns, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record fcr the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑By this petition, the petition‑ seeks the reversal of conviction of the respondents from section 325, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. to section 302, P.P.C. read with section 34,P.P.C In paragraph 14 of the judgment, the High Court has held that the parties were asserting their right as to which part of land was covered by the gift deed/sale‑deed, and, therefore, in the assertion of their right, the deceased, his father Fazal Hussain Shah and his uncle Mehboob Shah went to assert their right of ownership in the land by ploughing it which was resisted by the respondents if who were armed with sticks and iron pipe, and in that transaction the deceased, except for one injury which proved fatal, received other injuries which were simple. Mehboob Shah also received simple injuries with blunt weapons. Fazal Hussain Shah had also suffered similar injuries with blunt weapons. Since there was no premeditation and the respondents had only resisted the ploughing of the field which if the complainant party had not insisted upon would not have resulted in the transaction. The High Court was justified in holding that there was no intention on their part to kill the deceased. Having reached this conclusion, the High Court gave the benefit of it to the respondents and altered their conviction from the capital charge to one under section 325, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. In this view of the matter, we do not find any legal error in the ‑conclusion drawn upon the appraisal of the evidence and the alteration of the sentence. The petition is thus without merit and is dismissed. M.B.A./Z‑54/S Petition dismissed.