1983 P Cr (PLP)
AZEEM ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | AZEEM ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (AZEEM ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Wazir Ghazi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 8th March, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ ‑ S. 497/498 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑BaiI Murder of wife and her paramour on finding them in compromising position‑F. I. R. also showing motive as illicit relation between two‑Bail granted. Yusuf Kharal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for bail on behalf of Azeem petitioner in a case under section 302, P. P. C. registered at Police Station Kot Addu, vide F. I. R. No. 45 dated 21st March, 1981.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner committed the double murder of his wife Mst. Phapal and her paramour Ghulam Haider on 21st March, 1981 at Peshiwela in a field near the tubewell of Malik Ghulam Rubbani in the area of Mauza Khar Gharbi of Police Station. Kot Addu. According to the FA. R. lodged by Ghulam Haider deceased himself which can be treated as a dying declaration, it is alleged that both the deceased were found sitting together in the field when the petitioner came there armed with a sickle and injured them. Both the deceased succumbed to those injuries subsequently. In the F. I. R. it is stated that the petitioner suspected illicit relations between his wife Mst. Phapal and him (Ghulam Haider).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that, in fact, both the deceased were found in a compromising position when they were attacked by the petitioner under grave and sudden provocation and in order to minimize his part, Ghulam Haider deceased has sup pressed the facturn of compromising position of both the deceased at the time of occurrence. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed this application.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that it had been suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two deceased were found in a compromising position when the Peti tioner lost his self‑control and injured them and, as such, the offence may fall under section 304, P. P. C. and not under section 302, P. P. C. Even according to the F. I. R. the motive for the crime was stated to be that the petitioner suspected illicit relations between the two deceased. Without making any expression lest it may prejudice the merits of the case. I consider it a fit case for the grant of bail. The petitioner is accordingly allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Muzaffargarh. M.Y.H. Bail granted,