2002 PLP 1889 (SCMR)
TALAT MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1889 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday |
| Parties | TALAT MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1889 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1889 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1889 (SCMR) (TALAT MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Khizar Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25‑7‑2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1998 and Murder Reference No. 165 of 1998). ‑‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Reappraisal of evidence‑‑‑Sentence‑‑‑Sudden provocation‑‑‑ Conviction on the basis of statement of the accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Prosecution failed to prove presence of eye‑witnesses at the place of occurrence‑‑‑Accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. admitted that the deceased entered into his house and caught hold of one of their female on account of which the accused persons had committed the murder‑‑‑Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death under S.302, P.P.C.‑‑‑High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction maintained the conviction but converted death sentence to life imprisonment‑‑‑ Complainant sought enhancement of the sentence of the accused‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Accused had made out a case of sudden provocation as the deceased had entered their house and caught hold of their females‑‑‑Present case was not of enhancement of sentence‑‑‑Statement of the accused if was to be made basis for his conviction, the same was to be accepted or rejected as a whole --Supreme Court declined to enhance the sentence of the accused‑‑ Judgment .passed by the High Court was maintained‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition is .directed against the judgment, dated 25‑7‑2001 of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court through which conviction of the petitioner recorded by the Trial Court under section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of Ishtiaq Ahmed deceased has been upheld but his sentence of death converted into life imprisonment whereas co‑accused Talat Muhammad who was also sentenced to death has been acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. Both these accused persons who were also convicted and sentenced under section 201, P.P.C. were, however, acquitted from the said charge.
2. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the findings arc as follows:‑‑ (a) That the presence of the eye‑witnesses at the spot was highly doubtful; (b) that the prosecution and defence as well had not spoken the truth.
3. The petition has been filed by the complainant fore enhancement of sentence of the respondent. It appears ‑that the learned Judges of the High Court after having held that the prosecution had told a lie and presence of the eye‑witnesses at the spot has not been proved, proceeded to maintain the conviction because the respondents in their statements under section 342, P.P.C. made out a case that they acted under sudden provocation as deceased had entered into their house and caught hold Mst. Rukhsana, on account of which they committed the said act. In these circumstances it is not a case of enhancement of sentence as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. The statement of the accused according to law if is to be made the basis for his conviction is to be accepted or rejected as a whole, therefore, in our view law would bye on the side of the respondents accused rather than enhancement of their sentence.
4. In view of this, we do not find any merits in this petition as the judgment passed by the Lahore High Court does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this petition is hereby dismissed and leave refused. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./T‑29/S Petition dismissed.