SCMR 1990

1990 PLP 296 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 199 of 1988, decided on 26th September, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Javid Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1990 PLP 296 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Javid Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 296 (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 296 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 296 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 26th September, 1989.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench dated 23‑5‑1988 in Cr. Appeal No. 127 of 1985/BWP). ‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Contentions that co‑accused having been acquitted present accused was also entitled to same treatment and that conviction under S.302, P.P.C. was not legal and proper, were found having no force‑‑‑High Court had examined entire evidence especially that of eye‑witnesses which was believed‑‑‑Case of present accused was distinguishable from acquitted accused‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused was in no way illegal as fatal blow was attributed to him‑‑‑Mere fact that accused did not repeat the blow would not diminish his criminal liability so as to alter his conviction and reduce sentence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Date of hearing: 26th September, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Muhammad Ali seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench dated 23‑5‑1988. Muhammad Ali and co‑accused Bashir Ahmad were tried for the murder of their real brother Muhammad Akbar. The trial Court, by judgment dated 15‑12‑1985 held Muhammad Ali guilty. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000 or in default three years R.I. Bashir Ahmad was acquitted. Muhammad Ali appealed to the Lahore High Court. The State filed appeal against the acquittal of Bashir Ahmad, as well as revision for enhancement of Muhammad Ali's sentence. All these matters were dismissed by the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that co -accused Bashir Ahmad having been acquitted, the petitioner was also entitled to the same treatment. It was contended that the conviction under section 302, P.P.C. was not legal and proper. The contentions have no force. The High Court examined the entire evidence especially that of the eye‑witnesses. Their testimony was believed. Case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the acquitted accused. This fact was also duly noted by the High Court. Similarly we don't think the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is in any way illegal and calls for interference. The fatal blow was attributed to the petitioner. The mere fact that he did not repeat the same would not diminish his criminal liability so as to alter his conviction and reduce the sentence. Dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1143/S Petition dismissed