1990 PLP 514 (SCMR)
UMAR HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus SAID SHAH and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 514 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid lqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | UMAR HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus SAID SHAH and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 514 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 514 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid lqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 514 (SCMR) (UMAR HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus SAID SHAH and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Nazim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 22 December, 1987 in Criminal Appeal No.25‑J of 1985/Murder Reference No.187‑L of 1985). ‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Sentence‑‑‑Prosecution's own version was that accused had suspicion that deceased had developed illicit relationship with his wife‑‑‑Such circumstance was considered extenuating by High Court and sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life‑‑‑No interference thus was called for‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Nazim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th April, 1989. JAVID JOBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 22 December, 1987 whereby death sentence of Said Shah respondent was altered to life imprisonment and the line was reduced to Rs.5,000. Briefly the facts are that Said Shah respondent alongwith Allah Ditta co- accused was tried for the murder of Khizar Hayat deceased and the trial Court vide its judgment convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to death plus fine of Rs.10,000j. Allah Ditta co‑accused was acquitted. On appeal of Said Shah respondent to the High Court his conviction was maintained but the sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life and the fine was reduced as stated above. Hence the present petition. The occurrence took. place at 10 a.m. on 30 November, 1983. The F.I.R. was lodged by the present petitioner who is brother of the deceased. A gun seas recovered at the instance of Said Shah respondent but it is of no corroborative value. There are 3 eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. According to the medical evidence there were multiple firearm entrance wounds on the right side of chest of the deceased which were caused by a single shot. The motive is that Said Shah respondent had suspicion that the deceased had illicit relationship with his wife. The prosecution version is that on the fateful day while the deceased had come out from his house and was proceeding to his Dera the respondent armed with a gun alongwith the co‑accused appeared from the front side. Then Said Shah respondent fired a shot at the deceased which hit him al' the chest and' he died. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there was no case for altering the sentence as it was a cold‑blooded murder based on mere suspicion. But it is evident from the, F.1.R. that the prosecution's own version was that Said Shah respondent had the suspicion that the deceased had developed illicit relationship with his wile. 11 is only this reason which was considered as an extenuating circumstance by the High Court as Said Shah respondent appears to have killed the deceased to vindicate, his family honour. Since this is the position no interference is called for. This petition is therefore dismissed. M.A.K./U‑26/S Petition dismissed.