1995 PLP 996 (SCMR)
SALAHOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 996 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | SALAHOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 996 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 996 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 996 (SCMR) (SALAHOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Abul Aasim Jaffri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 22‑8‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Crl. A. No. 216/91‑‑‑M.R. No.100/91). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in the event of the observation forming basis for reduction in sentence not having been borne out from the record High Court, had properly exercised its jurisdiction in reducing the same.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 22‑8‑1993.
2. Abdullah son of Ameer, the respondent, was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang. The High Court maintained the conviction but converted the death sentence into life imprisonment.
3. According to Salehoon P.W. 8, the respondent had demanded the hand of his daughter Mst. Kalsoom Bibi, but his request was refused because he was jobless and vagabond. On the day of occurrence the accused having a hatchet in his hand came to the house of P.W. 8, and gave a hatchet blow to the deceased Mst, Kalsoom Bibi. Mst. Sukhan P. W. 9 raised alarm. She was also given hatchet blow by the respondent.
4. The reasons which weighed with the High Court in reducing the sentence are:‑ "So far as the question of sentence awarded :o the appellant for the offence committed by the appellant is concerned that needs anxious consideration of this Court. We are of the view that it is not a case of death sentence. It appears to be unpremeditated attack, the origin of which remains shrouded in mystery due to the presence of blood stained `Kassi' at the place of occurrence which was found by the 1.0. when he reached there and this fact finds mention in the inquest report. We, therefore, are of the view that something appears to have occurred at the spur of the moment when the appellant came there which caused the occurrence. It certainly happened due to the refusal of marriage by the deceased to the appellant. It can, therefore, safely be said that it was an unpremeditated attack and the appellant might have picked up the `Kassi' from the spot and caused the injuries to the deceased"
3. The learned counsel has assailed the finding of the High Court that the origin of attack was shrouded in mystery; that it was premeditated attack and the respondent might have picked up Kassi from the spot. The observation made in para. 15 of the judgment noted above has not been borne out from the record, therefore the point of consideration is whether the High Court has properly exercised its jurisdiction in reducing the sentence. Leave is granted. N.H.O./S‑891 /S Leave granted.