Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 684 1995 SLD 684 , 1995 PLD 83
Quetta High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 61, Criminal Revisions Nos. 73 and 79 of 1993, decided on 22nd December, 1994.
Presented By: Before Ainimil-Mulk Mengal, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary and Mir Muhammad Nawaz Marri, .1.1
Muhammad Zafar for Appellant (in Criminal Revisions Nos.73 acid 79 of 1993). Syed Ayaz Zahoor for
Respondent (in Criminal Revision No.73 of ,1993)

ABDUL HAQUE and others---Appellants

VERSUS

THE STATE and others---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 300

P L D 1995 Quetta 83 Criminal Appeal No. 61, Criminal Revisions Nos. 73 and 79 of 1993, decided on 22nd December, 1994. Per Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary, J.; Mir Muhammad Nawaz Marri, J. agreeing-- Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 300---Qatl-i-Amd---Grave and sudden provocation---Section 300, P.P.C. (as amended) does not provide any exception in respect of the offence of Qatl-i-Amd if committed due to grave and sudden provocation. Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 300---Murder due to provocation---Commission of offence of murder due to provocation would be liable to ordinary punishment provided in the substantive law coupled with the nature of the standard of evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court---Court, keeping in view the particular facts of the case would be precluded to award the punishment of Qisas. State v. Muhammad Hanif and 5 others 1992 SCMR 2047; Federation 'J of Pakistan v. Gul Hassan and others PLD 1989 SC 633 and reU Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Qatl-i-Amd---Accused not liable to - Qisas if deceased not Masoomuddam---If deceased was not Masoomuddam then the accused charged for killing him would not be liable for Qisas, but he would not be exonerated from the punishment of Jagir or the payment of compensation (Diyat) to the heirs of the deceased. State v. Muhammad Hanif and 5 others 1992 SCMR 2047 and Islami Qawanin Hudood, Qisas, Diyat wa Ta'ziraat by Dr. Tanzilur Rehman ref. Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---   ----S. 302---Appreciation of evidence---Accused had taken a special plea of having committed the murder under grave and sudden provocation and the burden of proving the same had shifted to him, but except his own statement he had failed to produce any other corroborative piece of evidence and his plea was not believable---Accused had killed the deceased with pre-planning and the reason put forth by him for keeping the tire-arm in his possession at the relevant time was on afterthought---Accused had committed the murder of the; deceased who was in handcuffs in the broad daylight in a Court room without even caring for the sanctity of the Court and supremacy of law and he was not entitled to any…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register