Case Details

Citation(s)
1983 SLG 354 1983 SLD 354 1983 SCMR 519
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 10 in Criminal Petition No. 42 of 1983, decision dated: 2-02-1983.(On appeal from the judgment dated 25-01-1983 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1966)
NASIM HASAN SHAH AND M. S. H. QURAISHI, JJ
Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. Tanvir Ahmad, Additional Advocate General for the State

FATEH KHAN AND 2 OTHERS

VS

THB STATE

Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Ss. 307/34 & 458 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 544 A Attempt to murder Sentence Compromise between parties Sentence of accused reduced to period already undergone¬ Order for payment of compensation passed under S. 544 A, Cr. P. C. also set aside in view of compromise. [Compensation]. Khurshid Ahmad v. The State 1976 S C M R 193 ref. JUDGMENT NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 7 11 1982 passed in Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1966, whereby the sentence of the petitioners, who were convicted under section 307/34, P. P. C. and sentenced each to suffer four years' R. I. and under section 458, P. P. C. and sentenced each to two years' .R. I. was reduced to two years' R. I. and one year's R. I. respectively. 2. The petitioners were tried under section 307/34/458, P. P. C. in connection with an occurrence which took place on 12 1 1965. All of them were convicted by a, learned Magistrate of Mianwali on 13 7 1965. Their appeal against the conviction and, sentence was dismissed by the Session Judge, Mianwali on 6 6 1966. They moved the Lahore High Court by a revision (bearing Cr. R. 627/66) and were released on bail on 5 8 1966. However, the said revision did not come up for hearing for more than 1 years and was heard on 7 11 1982 and ultimately dismissed. However, the learned Single Judge in the High Court considering that the petitioners had suffered the agony of a protracted trial and remained in suspense during the pendency of the appeal and revision reduced the sentence of each petitioner to two years' R. I. under section 307/34, P. P. C. and to one year's R. 1. under section 458, P. P. C. and ordered that both the sentences should run concurrently. Fateh Khan, Petitioner No. 1, was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000, as compensation under section 544 A, Cr. P. C. and in default of the payment he was ordered to suffer one year's R. 1. in addition to his substantive sentence. 3. I support of this petition for leave to appeal, it is submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the complainant is prepared to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492