Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 292 1990 SLD 292 1990 PLD 820
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petitions Nos. 124-8 and 333 of 1987, decision dated: 16-05-1990.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ
Mian Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record (in Cr.P. 124R of 1987). Nemo (in Cr.P. 1248 of 1987). Ijaz Hussain Betalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (absent) (in Cr.P. 333

IFTIKHAR AHMAD alias GULLA and another

VS

THE STATE and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)------Art.185(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Petition for leave to appeal--­Leave was sought in two cross criminal petitions which had arisen out of same murder case---One petition had been filed by the convict, whereby he had challenged his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under S. 302, P.P.C. while in the other the complainant had challenged the reduction of sentence of death by High Court---Counsel for convict, at the outset of hearing of petition stated that in case the petition for enhancement of sentence was allowed, he would press the petition of the convict but in case the petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed he would not press the petition against conviction--­Supreme Court, accordingly made an exception in the order of hearing as normally in such like cases the counsel for the convict has precedence in the order of hearing. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 11360)--- ----Ss. 302 & 300, Exception 4---Sentence, reduction in---Notwithstanding the rejection of the pica of sudden fight or right of self-defence, a case may still be made out depending upon circumstances, for reduction of sentence.--[Sentence]. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Appreciation of evidence---Principle of origin of offence remaining "shrouded in mystery"---Application---Three injuries were found on the person of the deceased---Eye-witnesses were able to see two of such injuries being inflicted while the third one had already been inflicted before such witnesses arrived which meant that the occurrence immediately before the said injury was inflicted, was neither seen nor known to anybody---Such omission or absence, ordinarily was not enough to hold that the origin of the attack was shrouded in mystery--­Principle is applicable when there are other attending circumstances which tend to show that there could and might have been something more than what is known to the witnesses or stated by the witnesses; which if it would have been brought to light might have given benefit to the accused in matter of sentence--­Such a supposition cannot be imaginary, it has to be real and should have nexus with the established…
🔒
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