Death
Death legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Two accused faced trial for committing murder where one accused was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for imprisonment for life while other accused was acquitted of charge
Dead body was recovered after 36/37 days of the occurrence
Medical report, showed that approximate time between death of deceased and post mortem was 48/72 hours
Dead body recovered on 01.12.2013 might have been killed on 29.11.2013 and not prior to that
Dead body which was recovered and considered to be that of deceased could not be presumed to be relevant dead body
Contradiction existed between version of prosecution and medical evidence and death could not be established before Trial Court
Benefit, in case of doubt, must accrue in favour of accused as a matter of right and not of grace
High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused as prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt and accused were acquitted of the charge
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Death-Due to Broncho-pneumonia developing independently of burns caused by accused's act-Accused not guilty of murder.
(a) Sentence-Separate, under Ss. 302 and 302/149 P. P. C.-Former in respect of one murder and latter in. respect of the same murder and two other murders committed along with other accused in the same transaction-Held, unobjectionable, in the absence of prejudice to accused, separate sentence for all three murders instead of for only two being the result of inadvertence.
"Death", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/15124
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Death"
1999 P T D 3403
INCOME-TAX OFFICER , Versus KALYAN DAS MADAM MOHAN ,
Court: 230 I T R 191P L D 1994 Peshawar 35
QADAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, HARRIPUR and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Act.199‑‑‑Special Court awarded death sentence on three counts to the accused, but did not make a reference to the High Court for confirmation of his death sentences‑‑‑Presidential General Amnesty Order dated 7‑12‑1988 commuting death sentences into life imprisonment being applicable to the case of the accused, he was taken out of the death cell and made to serve the sentences of life imprisonment as an ordinary prisoner‑‑‑Pursuant to the Federal Government's letter dated 9‑4‑1991 clarifying that the General Amnesty Order was applicable to those prisoners only whose death sentences had been already confirmed by the High Court by 6‑12‑1988, the accused was once again placed in death cell ‑‑‑High Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987 did not contain a provision for making of a reference by the Special Court of a death sentence for confirmation to the High Court as the Special Court itself was vested with the powers of a High Court under the Act and the provisions of S374, Cr.P.C. were not applicable to the case as the Special Court had not at all acted as a Sessions Court‑‑‑Letters of the Federal Government and the Inspector‑General of Prisons and subsequent placing back the accused in death cell in pursuance thereof were consequently declared as acts without lawful authority with the direction to the Provincial Government and the Superintendent Jail concerned to take out the accused from the death cell and make him serve the sentences of life imprisonments on three counts.‑‑Amnesty.1979 S C M R 364
SIRAJ DIN‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑ S. 302‑Murder‑case‑Commutation of death sentence‑General amnesty declared by President on 23‑12‑1971 applying only to convicts standing sentenced to death on such date‑Death sentence of petitioner having already been set aside by High Court, petitioner's case, held, not covered by terms of amnesty.‑Amnesty‑Sentence.P L D 2024 Supreme Court 951
GHULAM SHABBIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
Court: High Court1980 P Cr
AMEER ALI alias SITY‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore2020 P Cr
SHAFI MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)P L D 1987 Karachi 250
NAWAB ALI LORALI AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: --Ss. 374 & 431‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302,134‑..Appeal and reference for confirmation of death sentence, pending‑Accused N" killed in encounter while attempting to escape in jail break up, while accused `,A' escaped alongwith 3, others‑Appeal of accused 'N' pertaining to sentence of death, held, would abate as contem plated under S. 431, Cr. P. C. but would not abate so far as sentence of fine was concerned‑No useful purpose however, would be served by recovery of fine‑Sentence of fine was set aside in circumstances. Abatement.P L D 1993 Supreme Court 14
EID MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Court:P L D 1964 Supreme Court 173
Mst. HUSSAIN JAN AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus Mst. ASMAT BEGUM AND ANOTHER‑‑Respondents
Court: ---‑ Gift ‑ Marzul maut (death illness) Considerations for establishing‑Apprehension of fast approaching death‑Every case to be decided on own facts‑Whether donor's failure to attend to ordinary avocations an essential for establishing marzul maut‑Whether serious malady continuing over a long time cannot be described as death illness‑Principle of Muhammadan Law to be kept in view‑Considerations, other than such principle, set down in decided cases only matters of evidence‑T. B. patient dying 13 days after making gift.1988 C L C 1507
SHAHBAZ and 2 others through Legal Heirs‑‑Plaintiffs, Versus Mst. ALI BEGUM through her Legal Heirs
Court: Lahore