1990SCMR1286 (PLP)
NAZIR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ASGHAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990SCMR1286 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ASGHAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1286 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1286 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1286 (PLP) (NAZIR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ASGHAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh.Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
- M.B.Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A.Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 4‑4‑1987, passed in Cr.A. No.45 of 1983). ‑‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Sentence, enhancement of‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether alteration of sentence of death of accused respondent to imprisonment for life by High Court was justified when at the time of her murder deceased was in advanced stage of pregnancy and according to medical report she was likely to give birth to twin babies within a couple of days who were also found dead. 1974SCMR271and1974SCMR276ref.
Judgment & Decree
S.USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 4‑4‑1987, whereby Criminal Appeal No.45 of 1983 filed by Asghar Ali respondent No.l was dismissed but his sentence of death was altered to life imprisonment. Asghar Ali was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Multan, for having murdered his wife Mst. Shahida at the morning prayer time on 12‑8‑1981 in his house. The learned trial Judge found him guilty of the offence, convicted him under section 302. P.P.C. and sentenced him to death with fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. for six months vide his judgment dated 19‑2‑1983. Appeal of Asghar Ali respondent No. 1 before the Lahore High Court was dismissed but his death sentence was altered to that of imprisonment for life and his fine was also reduced to Rs. 2,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. for one year, vide judgment dated 4‑4‑1987. The petitioner filed this petition for the enhancement of the sentence of the respondent No.l from life imprisonment to that of death. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record, we have observed that in this case the sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life only on the ground of unknown or deliberate concealment of motive for the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned High Court while altering the sentence of the accused respondent from death to imprisonment for life has ignored the fact that the respondent was not only responsible for the murder of Mst.Shahida but rather he is responsible for taking two more lives. As there is reasonable evidence available on record that at the time of her murder Mst. Shahida was pregnant and at the advanced stage of family way. According to the medical report she was carrying "twin babies" (a male and a female) and was likely to give birth to them within a couple of days from the date of her death. These babies were also found dead. The learned counsel also placed reliance on 1974 S C M R 271 and 276. We are satisfied that the contention raised by the learned counsel needs consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is therefore granted. N.H.Q./N‑213/S Leave granted.