| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 1479 2006 SLD 1479 2006 PLD 145 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petitions Nos. 848-L, 920-L and 921-L of 2002 and Jail Petition No.2 of 2003 along with Criminal Miscellaneous No.62 of 2005 in Criminal Petition No.920-L of 2002), decision dated: 12-12-2005.
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., M. JAVED BUTTAR AND TASSADDUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ
Syed Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court (in Crl. P. 848-L of 2002). Nemo (in Crl.Ps. 920-L, 921-L of 2002 and JP No. 2 of 2003). Mrs. Afshan Ghazanffar, A.A.G. for the State.
Criminal Petitions Nos. 848-L, 920-L and 921-L of 2002 and Jail Petition No.2 of 2003 along with Criminal Miscellaneous No.62 of 2005 in Criminal Petition No.920-L of 2002), decision dated: 12-12-2005.
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., M. JAVED BUTTAR AND TASSADDUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ
Syed Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court (in Crl. P. 848-L of 2002). Nemo (in Crl.Ps. 920-L, 921-L of 2002 and JP No. 2 of 2003). Mrs. Afshan Ghazanffar, A.A.G. for the State.
GHULAM ABBAS and others
VS
THE STATE GHULAM ABBAS and others vs THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 391, 396, 395, 458, 458/114 & 412---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Contention was that in accordance with the provisions of S.391, P.P.C. read with S.396, P.P.C. accused deserved for same sentence, as they were all equally responsible for the commission of the offence, and as such on having reduced the sentence of death by the High Court to imprisonment for life of the other co-accused the sentence of death of the accused was not liable to be maintained. However, at this stage having seen the law relied upon by the counsel of the accused, Supreme Court prima facie was of the opinion that if the sentence of death of the accused was maintained, then remaining accused would also be liable to the sentence of death therefore, while granting leave to appeal in the cases of co-accused, notices were also issued to them to explain as to why their sentences might also not be enhanced---Leave to appeal, thus, was granted, inter alia, to examine the said contentions as well as on merits of the case to the extent of other accused persons. Puranmal Agarwalla and others v. Rautmal Pincha AIR 1953 Assam 44); Shivappa and others v. Hyderabad State AIR 1955 Hyd. 147; Geedo and others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 2192, Abdul Qayyum and others v. The State PLD 2004 Kar. 232; Khalid Mehmood and 4 others v. The State 2004 SCMR 199 and Muhammad Rawab v. The State 2004 SCMR 1170 ref. . ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Listed petitions have been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2nd October, 2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. 2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that vide F.I.R. Exh.PC/1 dated 1st April, 1997 lodged by Sheikh Attique Ahmed (P.W.12) at Police Station Cantt. Sialkot, alleging therein that when he was present in his house along with Zaheer Haider his business partner, his wife Farida Atteeq and two sons namely Mohsin Ateeq aged about 11/12 years and Danish Ateeq aged about 8/9 years and his father Sh. Shafique Ahmed who was lying on the bed, all of a sudden three persons duly armed with pistol entered into the room. His wife made a shriek on seeing them, his father got up from…
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