1989 PLP 1475 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZIKARYA Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAEES and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1475 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZIKARYA Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAEES and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1475 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1475 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1475 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZIKARYA Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAEES and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Anwar, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.l.
- M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General and Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 4th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22nd October, 1985 of the Lahore High Court, in Criminal Revision No.347 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Enhancement of sentence was sought on technical ground that judgment of the High Court in appeal was silent on the disposal of the criminal revision which was separately disposed of by a short order and it was also contended that in the circumstances of the case death sentence was more proper punishment for the accused‑‑Two factors on the question of sentence which had gone in favour of accused were (i) his tender age at the time of offence, and (ii) the failure of prosecution to give the details of the motive relevant for the offence at the earlier stage‑‑Approach of Courts below on 4,J matter of sentence was neither illegal nor it suffered from any other error including that of any principle‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment of the High Court whereby in a murder case the respondent's appeal against conviction under section 302, P.P.C. and also sentences of imprisonment for life and fine were upheld and at the same time the petitioner's Criminal Revision for enhancement of the sentence to death, was dismissed. This petition has been moved by the complainant's side with a view to seek enhancement of sentence. Apart from the technical ground that the judgment of the High Court in appeal is silent on the disposal of the Criminal Revision, which was separately disposed of by a short order, learned counsel has also advanced the argument that in the, circumstances of this case the sentence of death was more proper punishent for the respondent No.
1. The two factors on the question of sentence which have gone in favour of the respondent/convict are (i), his tender age at time of the offence, and (ii) the failure from the prosecution side to give the details of the motive, relevant for the offence at the earlier stage. After hearing the learned counsel we find that in so far as the facts and circumstances of this case are concerned, the approach of the learned Courts E below on matter of sentence, was neither illegal nor it suffered from any other error including that of any principle. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.BA/M‑829/S Leave refused.