1987 PLP 341 (SCMR)
ABDUR RAZZAQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 341 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain; Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUR RAZZAQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 341 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 341 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain; Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 341 (SCMR) (ABDUR RAZZAQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, M.A. Zafar, Advocates Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4‑12‑1983, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 747 of 1980 and Murder Reference No. 186 of 1980) ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Petition against conviction‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Arguments raised amounting to request for re‑appraisal of evidence on finding of facts arrived at by two Courts below‑‑Case being not fit one for interference, leave to appeal refused. Nemo for State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ Abdur Razzaque petitioner was tried and convicted of the murder of Muhammad Sadiq and was sentenced, inter alia, to death. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court and his sentence of death was confirmed.
2. Feeling aggrieved he has come up to this Court for grant of leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have gone through the relevant passages of the impugned judgment and the evidence with his assistance. We notice that the arguments raised by him merely amount to a request for reappraisal of the evidence for reversal of finding of facts arrived at by the two Courts below.
4. After carefully considering the portions of the evidence and the judgment referred to by the learned counsel we do not think this to be a fit case for that purpose. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.