1994 PLP 1312 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1312 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1312 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1312 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1312 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 307
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13
Concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Courts below against the accused being fully borne out from the record were unexceptionable and were consequently maintained
Sentences awarded to accused, as a matter of abundant caution were ordered to run concurrently-- Sentence of six months' R.I. awarded to accused in lieu of failure to pay compensation was also directed to be simple imprisonment as contemplated by S.544-A, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
This order will dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos.336 and 335 of 1993 having commonalty of facts and law viz., the petitioner having been tried by the Judicial Magistrate, Khushab in the case registered vide F.I.R. No.41 of 12-5-1989 under section 307/109, P.P.C. at Police Station Gunjial, District Khushab for causing of gun shot injuries to the complainant Fateh Sher P.W.1's son Muhammad Sher injured P.W.2 conjunctively with Muhammad Khan son of Ahmad Khan and Mst. Maamoor Khatoon respectively father-in -law and wife of the injured on the preceding evening en route to his in-laws' place for fetching the estranged wife, with a view to avenging the reprimanded restraint from pursuing illicit liaison with the latter as well as in the case registered vide F.I.R. No.45 of 7-5-1989 under section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 for recovery of the crime weapons viz. .12 bore gun, culminating into co-accused's acquittal and his conviction and sentence under section 307, P.P.C. to three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000 in default to serve further two months' R.I. in addition to payment of Rs.10,000 compensation to the injured under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or to serve another term of 6 months' R.I. availing the benefit contemplated by section 382-B, Cr.P.C. and under section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to serve three months' R.I. respectively through separate judgments, dated 18-1-1993, inter alia, placing reliance on the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Sher injured P.W.2, his father the complainant Fateh Sher P.W.1, latter's cousin Munshi Khan P.W.6 and the medical evidence tendered by Dr. Pirzada Syed Muhammad Alain Shah P.W.8 observing (medico-legal report (Exh.P.A.). "(1) A fire-arm lacerated wound 4" x 3" on the back ulnar side of left hand. The skin, muscles, vessels, and left 3rd, 4th, 5th metacarpal bones smashed and damaged badly, tendens also damage and exposed. (2) Six fire-arm lacerated wounds of entry each measuring 1/4" x 1/3" x deep into left front of abdomen and lower side of chest in a group in an area of 2" x 1" and 1" from the midline." Assailed legality thereof in appeal before the Sessions court vide Criminal Appeals Nos.6 and 9 of 1993, respectively while the complainant availing the remedy of revision sought enhancement of the petitioner's sentence on the former count.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge seized of the matter, dismissing the petitioner's appeals granting the complainant's revision enhanced the sentence on the former count to 7 years' R.I. through separate judgments, dated 20-6-1993.
3. Feeling discontented therewith present petitions have been recoursed, during the course of hearing whereof learned counsel could not dislodge the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below being fully borne out from the record thus are unexceptionable; however, as a matter of abundant caution, it may be observed that the awarded sentences would run concurrently and that in lieu of failure to pay up compensation would be simple within the contemplation of section 544-A of the Cr.P.C. in addition to availing the benefit of contemplated by section 382-B ibid. Accordingly, the revision petitions are disposed of. N.H.Q./M-1507/L Order accordingly