Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLD 3056 = 1972 SCMR 161
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1971, decided on 28th February 1972. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 12th May 1970, in Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 1969/Murder Reference No. 103 of 1969).
Presented By: Sajjad Ahmad, Waheeduddin Ahmad and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ
Khan Hanud Ali Khan Shirwani, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Hian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for the State

SODAGAR-Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 58(3)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Conviction for murder-Question whether on account of abuses allegedly given by deceased (which infuriated and provoked the accused) he was entitled to any reduction in sentence of death awarded to him-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3). (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Murder-Sentcnce-Patricide-Father of accused administering chastisement to him for not dealing fairly with his brother-Accused returning short while later armed with pistol and shooting (lead his father-Plea of provocation negatived-Supreme Court refused to interfere with sentence of death awarded to accused. Date of hearing : 28th February 1972                                                                                                                    JUDGMENT SAMAD AHNIAD, J.-The appellant has been sentenced to death for the murder of his father, Lal Din, which took place at about 10 a.m. on the 3rd of July 1968. According to the prosecution case, the deceased, Lal Din, had three sons, Sodagar (appellant), Nazar and Habib, all of whom were blacksmiths by profession. The appellant wanted to instal a small flour mill and had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,025 from hi; brother, Nazar, on the condition that lie would take him as a partner in his mill. He went back on his promise and neither made Nazar his partner nor did he pay him back his money. This led to a dispute between the two brothers. A little while before the present occurrence, a panchayat was convened in the shop of the deceased to settle this dispute. The deceased supported the demand of Nazar against the appellant, which infuriated the latter. Both the father and the son exchanged abuses, where after the appellant left the shop, saying that he would soon brim the money and pay it. Soon after, the appellant re-appeared, armed with a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register