1986 P Cr (PLP)
SULTAN MAHMOOD and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | SULTAN MAHMOOD and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (SULTAN MAHMOOD and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Nasim Hassan and Lal Khan Baluch for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 307/34‑‑Injured person entering into compromise with accused persons‑‑Appeal coming up for hearing six years after suspension of sentence of accused‑‑Sentence reduced to one already undergone in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 307/34‑‑Compromise‑‑Compromise between parties in non- compoundable offence is a recognised ground for reduction in sentence.‑‑[Compromise‑‑Sentence]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 307/34‑‑Compromise‑‑Compromise between parties in non- compoundable offence is a recognised ground for reduction in sentence.‑‑[Compromise‑‑Sentence]. Sh. Nasim Hassan and Lal Khan Baluch for Appellants. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 19th March, 1986. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Magistrate Section 30, whereby he on 27‑3‑1980 convicted Sultan Muhammad and Ata Muhammad appellants under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to five years R.I. each and a fine of Rs.5,000 each in default thereof to further R.I. for six months each. The learned Magistrate also directed that the licensed guns Exhs. P.2 and P.4 and licences P/3 and P/5 be confiscated to State.
2. The learned counsel has not challenged the conviction. He has requested for leniency in the sentence on the ground that Nasir Abbas injured has entered into compromise with the appellants. Nasir Abbas is present in the Court. He has produced application Mark 'A' in this behalf. The same be placed on the record. No one has appeared on behalf of State to oppose this appeal.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants with care. The appellants were convicted on 27‑3‑1980. They were allowed bail on 7‑5‑1980. Furthermore, compromise between the parties in non‑compoundable offence is a recognised ground for the reduction in the sentence. For these reasons, I feel inclined to reduce the sentences awarded to the appellants from 5 years' R.I. to one already undergone by them. The fine of Rs.5,000 each, is also remitted. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I direct that guns P/2 and P/4 and licenses Exhs. P/3 and P/4 shall not be confiscated and be returned to the, appellants. The appeal is disposed of accordingly H.A.K. Appeal partly accepted.