1968 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF-Petitioner Versus FAZAL HAQ AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF-Petitioner Versus FAZAL HAQ AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF-Petitioner Versus FAZAL HAQ AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Waheed Khan, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th March 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 7th February 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 240 of 1967). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Sentence of death or transportation for life-Judicial discretion of trial Court-Supreme Court in principle does not interfere in such matters-Special Leave to Appeal for enhancement of sentence-Refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-By this petition Muhammad Ashraf the brother of Muhammad Sadiq deceased seeks leave to appeal from the order of the6,High Court declining to enhance the sentence of transportation for life awarded to the respondent No. 1 to the extreme penalty, of death for the offence under section 302/34, P. P. C. Muhammad Daud the co-accused with -the respondent No. 1 who fired the fatal shots at the deceased has been sentenced to death and on a reference and appeal the High Court has main tained his conviction and sentence. The respondent No. I who too had fired and hit the deceased was, however,' awarded a lesser sentence on the finding that the injuries caused by him were not fatal. The High Court agreed with this view and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner from which he seeks leave to appeal. We see no reason to call in question the order of the High Court as the sentence awarded to the respondent No.1 is legal and in principle this Court does not interfere in such matter unless it is shown that a grave miscarriage of justice has taken place. Law provides alternate sentences for the offence under section ?02, P. P. C. and it is within the judicial discretion of the trial Judge to award one or the other sentence as he consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case. As seen above the was a distinguishing feature for grant of lesser sentence in case although tile respondent No. 1 was equally guilty of the offence and could have been awarded the extreme penalty of death. The petition is thus devoid of any substance and is dismissed. Leave refused.