Home Maxims & Terms Sentence of Death meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Sentence of Death

Sentence of Death legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2007 CLD 217 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Variation in death certificate would not make same a reliable document.

1951 PLD 142 FEDERAL-COURT-OF-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Question of commutation on ground of delay in execution-Whether Federal Court will consider on petition for special leave to appeal.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Sentence of Death", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21627

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Sentence of Death"

SCMR 1987
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 51 of 1982, decided on 4th November, 1986.

1987 S C M R 128

MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus The STATE‑‑Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Sentence of death‑ Reduction in‑‑Compromise with sufficient compensation‑‑Mitigating circumstance‑‑Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death‑‑Accused party sufficiently compensating heirs of deceased‑‑Parties compromised agreeing to keep future peace‑‑Compromise treated a mitigating circumstance‑ Conviction of petitioner and sentence of fine maintained but sentence of death reduced to imprisonment for life‑‑Petition converted into appeal and partially allowed.‑‑Sentence‑‑Compromise.
PLD 1952
1949-November-29

P L D 1952 Lahore 560

THE CROWN‑Petitioner Versus SAIDU and another‑Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1954
Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 1952, decided on 20th May 1953, from the order of the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, dated the 8th December 1952.

P L D 1954 Lahore 73

KHALAS KHAN and another (Convicts)‑Appellants Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent

Court:
PLD 1998
Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 1995, decided on 21st October, 1997.

P L D 1998 Peshawar 101

SAMBALI KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑‑Ss. 299(k) & 302 as substituted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (II of 1997))‑‑‑Sentence of Qisas‑‑‑Conviction of accused for Qatl‑e‑Amd was maintained because case against accused not only stood proved beyond any reasonable doubt, but was also too strong to be demolished‑‑‑Sentence of death as Qisas awarded to accused was, however, altered to imprisonment for life being inconceivable that sentence of death as Qisas could be awarded without undertaking exercise of Tazkiyah‑al‑Shuhood ‑‑‑Liability of Qisas was to be established by two competent (A'dil) witnesses and sentence of death as Qisas could not be imposed unless Court was satisfied having regard to requirements of Tazkiyah‑al‑Shahood that the charge of intentional murder was supported by credible testimony of two male adult (A'dil) Muslim witnesses who were not only truthful witnesses, but also abstained from major sins and were not inclined to indulge in minor sins‑‑‑Probity of witnesses was indispensable‑‑‑Probity of all eye‑witnesses in case was challenged and it was not established on record by means of Tazkiyah‑al‑Shahood that they were in fact A'dil witnesses‑‑‑When the guilt of intentional murder was established, but the evidence of the requisite standard for visiting murder with the sentence of death as Qisas was not available, Court had to award sentence of death as Tazir‑‑‑Deceased was earlier charged for murder of father of accused when accused was about 7/8 years of age, but deceased was acquitted and accused being smarting under grievance had committed murder of deceased to avenge murder of his father‑‑‑Sentence of death as Qisas awarded to accused, was altered to imprisonment for life.‑‑Sentence.
SCMR 1987
Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1986 in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 225 of 1982, decided on 20th December, 1986.

1987 S C M R 363

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias ACHHU‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Sentence‑ Compromise‑‑Mitigating circumstances‑‑Petition against conviction and sentence of death‑‑Complainant side compromised after being duly compensated by accused party‑‑Agreement of compromise treated as a mitigating circumstance‑‑Conviction was maintained but sentence of death reduced to imprisonment for life‑‑Petition converted into appeal and allowed.‑‑Compromise‑‑Sentence.
PCRLJ 1983
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 344 of 1971 and Confirmation Case No. 14 of 1982 decided on 25th May, 1982.

1983 P Cr

ABDUL RASHEED‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Court: Karachi
PLD 2013
2013-May-31

P L D 2013 Supreme Court 793

HASSAN and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
SCMR 1980
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1976, decided on 2nd October, 1979.

1980 S C M R 291

SHER ALI‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Court: ‑‑ S. 302‑Murder‑Division Bench of High Court maintaining con viction of accused but differing on question of sentence ‑One member commuting sentence of death to life imprisonment on grounds that (i) parties were close relatives ; (ii) they had no serious enmity, (iii) marks of pellets showing something did happen between parties before accused shot deceased, and other confirming. death sentence Third Judge, on reference. favouring verdict of latter Member and thus on majority view death sentence confirmed ‑ Supreme Court, on appeal, agreed with view of differing Judge and converted sentence of death into that of life imprisonment.‑Practice and procedure‑Sentence.
SCMR 2005
Criminal Petition No. 489 of 2003, decided on 7th December, 2004.

2005 S C M R 427

Syed HAMID MUKHTAR SHAH Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 1994
Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 1992, decided on 11th October,1993.

1994 S C M R 582

SHAH MUHAMMAD alias MANNA‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan