2002 PLP 1990 (SCMR)
HAQ NAWAZ and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1990 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | HAQ NAWAZ and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1990 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1990 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1990 (SCMR) (HAQ NAWAZ and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 2002.
- 4. Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners mainly contended that even according to the judgment of the trial Court, the injury sustained by the deceased was attributed to both the petitioners, so it was difficult to ascertain as to whose shot became fatal and caused the death of deceased.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 8‑11‑2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C. M. No. l of 2001 in Crl. A. 974 of 2001). ‑‑‑‑S.426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/109/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suspension of‑sentence ‑‑‑Deeper appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Conflict between medical and ocular evidence‑‑‑Contention of the accused was that there was conflict between medical and ocular evidence and the fatal shot sustained by the deceased was attributed to both the accused persons‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Contention of the accused person acquired deeper appreciation of evidence which could not be done at ‑ the stage of suspension of sentence‑‑‑High Court had rightly declined suspension of sentence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order dated 8‑11r2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Cr.M.No.1 of 2001 in Criminal Appeal No. 974 of 2001 whereby the same was dismissed and the sentence of imprisonment for life was not suspended.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioners alongwith other accused, namely, Fida Hussain, Riaz Hussain alias Raza and Niaz Hussain were sent up to face trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge‑II, Bhakkar, who on conclusion of the trial, convicted the petitioner under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life each with a fine of Rs.50,000 or in default to further undergo S.I. for one year each. The remaining accused were acquitted.
3. The petitioner assailed the judgment in appeal before the Lahore High Court, wherein he preferred the application for suspension of the sentence mainly on the ground that there was conflict between the medical and the ocular evidence and that they were not present at the spot and pleaded the plea of alibi with the documentary evidence.
4. Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners mainly contended that even according to the judgment of the trial Court, the injury sustained by the deceased was attributed to both the petitioners, so it was difficult to ascertain as to whose shot became fatal and caused the death of deceased.
5. We do not find any force in the arguments as it amounts to deeper appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at the stage of suspension of sentence. Moreover, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order which is accordingly maintained.
6. The petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./H‑58/S Petition dismissed.