Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1656 1989 SLD 1656 1989 SCMR 1396
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.108 of 1986, decision dated: 27-02-1989
MUHMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JAVID IQBAL AND USMAN ALI SHAH, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SHAUKAT ALI

VS

FEROZE DIN and 2 others

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--Ss.302, 304, Part I & 307--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Petition for enhancement of sentence--Case was covered by principles laid down in Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others P L D 1962 S C 502--Convictions and sentences awarded by High Court were neither illegal nor in appropriate--Leave to appeal was refused. Sved Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others P L D 1962 S C 502 rel. Malik A. R. Arshad, Advocate for Petitioner.' Nemo for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Ch. Qamaruddin Khan. Advocate-on-Record for the State. Date of hearing; 27th February. 1989. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the acceptance by the High Court, of a criminal revision filed by the respondents' side as a result of which the conviction of respondent No. 1 was altered from 302 to 304, Part I, P.P.C. and the sentence of death awarded to him was altered to 10 years' R.I. His conviction under section 307, P.P.C. was maintained but the sentence was reduced from 8 years to 5 years' R.I. The case against the other respondents is not being pressed, therefore, for the purpose of this petition the facts and particulars about them need not be stated. Learned counsel has contended that it was a clear case of murder and the conviction and sentence accordingly should have been upheld by the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court while discussing the evidence led by the prosecution made the following observation:- "In our view these are material improvements and indicate firstly that the eye-witnesses suppressed certain facts at the initial stage secondly that the narration of the occurrence and description of various injuries were not correctly given by them during investigation of the case. It is in evidence that Sardar Muhammad accused was empty-handed. If the accused had come to commit the murder of Muhammad Siddique and to launch murderous assault on the witnesses then Sarder Muhammad accused must also have taken some weapon in his hand. We get an impression that there was some quarrel between…
🔒
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