2002 SCMR 1188 (PLP)
GUL MUHAMMAD GONDAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 SCMR 1188 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD GONDAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 SCMR 1188 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 SCMR 1188 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Farooq 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 SCMR 1188 (PLP) (GUL MUHAMMAD GONDAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Arshad Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 1‑6‑2001 of the Lahore High court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No.792 of 1997). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.302(c)/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Sentence‑‑ H'_gh Court had taken lenient vin the matter of sentence for the reasons that bout the accused were of tender age being 14/15 years old-‑Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case also squired determination of the question of sentence within the purview of section 302(c). C.P_C. in a lenient manner‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Court to the complainant in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.302(c)/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Sentence‑‑ H'_gh Court had taken lenient vin the matter of sentence for the reasons that bout the accused were of tender age being 14/15 years old-‑Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case also squired determination of the question of sentence within the purview of section 302(c). C.P_C. in a lenient manner‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Court to the complainant in circumstances. Arshad Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th February, 2002. QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Nawaz and Nadeem respondents were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, vide judgment dated 27‑11‑1997 under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or suffer 2 years further R.I. in default. Benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was also extended. The appeal filed by the respondents was partly accepted by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide judgment dated 1‑6‑2001, and not only their conviction was recorded under section 302(c), P.P.C. but the sentence of imprisonment for life was also reduced to 10 years R.I. each. A lenient view in the matter of sentence was taken by the High Court for the reason that both of them were about 14/15 years of age.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not deserve any leniency as they had poisoned a young boy to death.
3. After going through the impugned judgment and the material on record we do not find any force in the contention. Notwithstanding the tender age of the respondents a case for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence is made out on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which 8 require determination of the question of sentence within the purview of section 302(c), P.P.C. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused. Leave refused.