1985 PLP 1358 (MLD)
HAFEEZ and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1358 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | HAFEEZ and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1358 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1358 (MLD)?
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: 1985 PLP 1358 (MLD) (HAFEEZ and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 30th June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 304, Part I--Sentence--Ample evidence on record to prove that accused committed offence punishable under S. 304, Part I, P.P.C.- Conviction not challenged and only reduction of sentence prayed--Accused remaining in jail, as under-trial prisoner for about two years and as convict for about two and a half years--Case of reduction in sentence, held, was made out--Sentence of 10 years' R.1. reduced to one already undergone in circumstances. Muhammad Siddiq Chughtai for the Appellants. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby he on 20-12-1982, convicted Hafeez and Bashir appellants under section 304-I, P.P.C. and sentenced them to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each in default thereof 2 years' R.I.
2. The learned counsel has not challenged the conviction and rightly so because there is ample reliable evidence to prove that the appellants have committed the offence punishable under section 304-1, P.P.C. The learned trial Court has applied its conscious mind to the relevant evidence and given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by it. The learned counsel has requested for leniency in sentence. In the circumstances of the case the appellants were arrested on 9-5-1980; that they remained in jail as an under-trial prisoners for about 2 years; that they were convicted on 20-12-1982, and since the they are in jail. I feel that a case of reduction in sentence is mad out, so the sentence of imprisonment of 10 years is, hereby, reduce to one already undergone by them. The fine is also remitted. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. H. A. K. Appeal dismissed.