1990 PLP 1317 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD KHALEEL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1317 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, S. Usman Ali Shah |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHALEEL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1317 (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 1317 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, S. Usman Ali Shah.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1317 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD KHALEEL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sadiq Hayat Khan Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record and MA. Zaffar Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 20th January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order and judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 29‑4‑1987, passed in Criminal Appeal No.542 of 1983 and Murder Reference No.145 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Discretion exercised by High Court was neither whimsical nor arbitrary‑‑‑Case was not of wanton murder and therefore, was not fit for enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Muhammad Yousaf respondent No.l alongwith Muhammad Aslam and Humayun Shahzad both acquitted accused were tried by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, for the murder of Imtiaz Ahmad on 12‑10‑1981 at about 4 p.m. near Hussami Chowk, Mori Gate, Qila Didar Singh, Gujranwala, the F.I.R. of which was lodged by the petitioner and was convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to death, vide his order dated 29‑8‑1983. The learned trial Judge, however, acquitted Muhammad Aslam and Humayun Shahzad from the charges of the said murder. Fine of Rs.5,000 was also imposed upon the respondent No.l. Appeal of the respondent No.1 before the Lahore High Court was dismissed but the learned Judge of the High Court converted his death sentence to that of life imprisonment and his fine was enhanced from Rs.5,000 to Rs.30,000 which on realization to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. However, a revision petition filed by the complainant against the acquitted accused was dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record and findings of the Courts below. We have come to the conclusion that this petition has no merit and needs dismissal. The discretion exercised by the learned High Court is neither whimsical nor arbitrary. In our view, it is not a fit case for the enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death because it is not a case of wanton murder. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that it is not a fit case in which leave to appeal can be granted. The petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1250/S. Petition dismissed.