Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 3090 1971 SLD 3090 = 1971 PCRLJ 575
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 849 of 1968 and Murder Reference No. 17 of 1969, decided on 10th March 1970.
Presented By: Bashiruddin Ahmad and Muhammad Munir Faruquee, JJ
Umar Hayat v. The. State P L D 1966 S C 602 rel. M. Saleem and Azhar Hafeez for Appellant. Bashir Zafar for A.-G. for the State.

RIAZ KHAN-Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-Murder-Report promptly lodged by complainant mentioning name of eye-witness of occurrence-Evidence of eye-witness corroborated by another witness and these witnesses having no motive to implicate accused falsely-Accused also having sufficiently strong motive to kill deceased-Accused and nobody else, held, was responsible for death of deceased. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-Murder-Sentence Mitigation-Accused committing crime from sense of honour Sentence of death, held, not called for in circumstance- Sentence of death altered to transportation for life. Date of hearing : 10th March 1970. JUDGMENT BASHIRUDDIN AHMAD. J.--Riaz Khan (26) was tried for the murder of Ghulam Rasool on 20-10-1966, by the Addi tional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, who convicted him under sec tion 302, P. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer death. 2.The condemned person appealed and the case is also before us on reference under section 374, Cr. P. Code, for confirmation of the death sentence. This judgment will dispose of the appeal as well as the reference. 3. The story for the prosecution, briefly narrated, is that All Muhammad, who is the father of the deceased, used to tether his cattle in the haveli of Haider Beg, with whom the appellant had civil litigation. Two days before the occurrence, under consideration, Riaz Khan told Ali Muhammad that he should not tether his cattle in the haveli of Haider Beg, who was his enemy. Ali Muhammad replied that he was the kamin and could not side with anybody in the village. The appel lant felt annoyed and went away threatening Ali Muhammad. On the eventful day, at about sun-rise time, Ghulam Rasul deceased, who was a student, went to the village mosque in order to take a bath. The appellant reached there and began abusing the deceased. The deceased abused the appellant in return. The appellant whipped out carbine, Exh. P. 2, from the fold of his loin-cloth and fired at the deceased. The shot hit the deceased on his right eye. The deceased fell to the ground. Ghulam Rasul son of Karam Din and Faqir Muhammad reproved the appellant who ran away carrying the weapon of offence with him. Ghulam Rasool and Faqir…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register