1987 PLP 126 (SCMR)
RIAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus FAROOQ AHMAD and another‑‑Respondent.
| Citation | 1987 PLP 126 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | RIAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus FAROOQ AHMAD and another‑‑Respondent. |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 126 (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 126 (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 126 (SCMR) (RIAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus FAROOQ AHMAD and another‑‑Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Sher Bahadur Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in Crl. P.L.A. No. 184 of 1983).
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in Cr.P.L.A. No‑207 for Respondents (in Crl. P.L.A. No. 184 of 1983).
- Date of hearing: 5th November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the High Court, Lahore, dated 11th April, 1983, passed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 49 and 45 of 1980). ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Conviction altered from S. 302 to S. 300, Exception 2, P.P.C.‑‑Leave to appeal sought against acquittal on charge of murder and for enhancement of sentence‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑High Court's finding that there was reasonable possibility of defence put forward by appellant being true, challenged‑ Supreme Court, after consideration of evidence and reasoning given by High Court, agreed with impugned finding and refused leave to appeal. Nemo for the State (in Crl. P.SL.A. No. 207 of 1983).
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State (in Crl. P.SL.A. No. 207 of 1983). Date of hearing: 5th November, 1986. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This order will dispose of (i) Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 184 of 1983 filed by Riaz Ahmad complainant and (ii) Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 207 of 1983 filed by Muhammad Farooq against his conviction and sentence.
2. Muhammad Farooq (petitioner in Crl.P. No. 207 of 1983 was tried along with Muhammad Ashiq, inter alia, for the murder of Javaid Akhtar. The trial Court acquitted Muhammad Ashiq co‑accused but convicted Muhammad Farooq under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs.10,
000. On appeal the High Court altered his conviction to one under section 302‑II, P.P.C. and reduced his sentence from death to 5 years' R.I. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained. Feeling aggrieved he has filed a petition for leave to appeal (Crl.P. No.207 of 1983), against his conviction and sentence. Riaz Ahmad, complainant, has on the other hand, filed a Petition No. 184 of 1983, for leave to appeal, against the acquittal of Muhammad Farooq of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. and for enhancement of his sentence.
3. The learned counsel for Muhammad Farooq, accused‑petitioner (in CrI.P. No. 207 of 1983) did not press the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
4. The learned counsel for Riaz Ahmad, complainant‑petitioner, (in Cr.P. No. 184 of 1983), took us through the relevant portions of the judgment and submitted that the plea of defence raised by the accused‑petitioner, in (Cr.P. No. 207 of 1983), was not properly appreciated and that the High Court had wrongly held that 'there is a reasonable possibility that the defence put forward by the appellant might be true.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the relevant portions of the evidence and the reasons given by the High Court for the aforementioned finding and find ourselves in respectful agreement with it. We, therefore, find no force in this petition (Cr.P. No. 184 of 1983), which is also dismissed. This disposes of both the petitions. M. I. Petitions dismissed.