Petition for enhancement of sentence
Petition for enhancement of sentence legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Facts and circumstances of the case suggested that accused persons, should have been punished for life imprisonment with fine
Accused persons, were also held liable to pay fine of Rs.300,000 each and in default thereof to further suffer six months' S.I. with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.
Appeal/ constitutional petition were dismissed accordingly.
Complainant had contended that Trial Court had taken lenient view while recording sentence of life imprisonment to the accused instead of death penalty
Validity
Admittedly, deceased was killed by the accused persons with common intention but the prosecution by itself had attributed the main role of killing the deceased by firing of absconding accused
Said circumstances constituted mitigating circumstance and the Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused for life imprisonment
Revision petition for enhancement of sentence of accused was dismissed in circumstances.
Complainant had sought enhancement of sentences of accused persons contending that accused being armed with weapons had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to cause death of deceased as well as injuries to the prosecution witnesses; and that while recording their conviction, the Trial Court had failed to convict them under Ss.302(b)/149, P.P.C.; that accused were vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased; and that they, in circumstances deserved to be convicted under S.302(b), P.P.C. as well
Validity
Since co-accused to whom fatal firearm injury to the deceased was attributed, was a proclaimed offender, his culpability was yet to be determined by the court of competent jurisdiction
Plea of vicarious liability qua the accused persons under Ss.302(b)/149, P.P.C. was devoid of any force
Keeping in view the extenuating circumstances, case of enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused persons could not be considered
Petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed, in circumstances.
"Petition for enhancement of sentence", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939532
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Petition for enhancement of sentence"
1985 P Cr
THE STATE Petitioner Versus GHULAM SHAH Respondent
Court: Lahore2006 Y L R 1036
NIAMATULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus ABDUL QAHAR and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Quetta1968 P Cr
GHAUS AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court1989 S C M R 1387
GHULAM SARWAR Petitioner Versus JAVAID alias KHALID and another‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑S.307‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for enhancement of sentence‑‑High Court reduced sentence of accused to already undergone (1 year and 8 months) as alleged motive was too weak and the immediate cause for the attack was not disclosed by the prosecution‑‑Reasons stated by High Court for reduction of sentence being weighty, Supreme Court found no justification for enhancement of sentence‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑Sentence.1990 S C M R 339
GHULAM HAIDER KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 3 others‑‑Respondents
Court: High Court1997 P Cr
SHEER SHAH and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Lahore1989SCMR711
Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 3 others — Respondents
Court: --Ss.304, Part I & 307--Sentence--Delay--Accused had already suffered sentence that was awarded to them--Matter came up before Supreme Court after 22 years of occurrence--In spite of defects pointed out and noted by Supreme Court, discretion exercised by High Court in dismissing petition for enhancement of sentence, was not interfered with in circumstances.--Delay--Sentence.1990 S C M R 1197
MUMTAZ and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Reappraisal of evidence‑‑ Reappraisal of evidence is not the function of Supreme Court.‑‑Evidence.1987 S C M R 1863
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN LASHKARANI
Court: High CourtP L D 1990 Supreme Court 820
IFTIKHAR AHMAD alias GULLA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑‑Ss. 302 & 300, Exception 4‑‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑‑Notwithstanding the rejection of the pica of sudden fight or right of self‑defence, a case may still be made out depending upon circumstances, for reduction of sentence.‑‑Sentence.