1987 PLP 1081 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFFAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1081 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFFAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1081 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1081 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain 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 1081 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFFAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basttir A. Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑4‑1985 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1983). ‑‑‑Ss. 302 & 84‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Concurrent finding of fact‑‑Conviction under S. 302, P.P.C. challenged‑‑Petitioner's plea of insanity disbelieved by two Courts below‑‑Supreme. Court declined to consider question of fact at leave to appeal stage and dismissed petition as having no merits. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Abdul Ghaffar petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 22‑4‑1985, dismissing his appeal in a case under section 302, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner demanded Jagga tax from Muhammad Abdullah (deceased), who was a Munshi in the Foodgrain Mandi, Okara. The deceased refused to pay. The accused‑petitioner stabbed the deceased twice and killed him. It may be stated that he is the solitary accused in the case. In his defence the accused‑petitioner raised the plea of insanity, which was not believed by the Courts below and relying on the prosecution evidence convicted him under section 302, P.P.C., but was awarded the lesser sentence.
3. The only plea pressed by the petitioner's counsel before us is that of insanity. That is a question of fact and cannot be reconsidered by this Court at this stage. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merits. M.I. /A‑36/S Petition dismissed.