Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 94/11 of 1983, decided on 5th February, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench 3‑10‑1983 passed in Criminal Revision No.117 of 1983),

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑Murder‑‑Sentence ‑‑Accused convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by trial Court‑ Revision petition of complainant‑Petitioner praying for enhancement of sentence dismissed by High Court‑‑No interference with impugned order found to be called for‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Sardar M. Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 5th February, 1984.

.‑‑ This petition is directed against the order, dated 3‑10‑1983 passed by a Single Judge of the learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench whereby Criminal Revision No. 117 of 1983 praying for enhancement of sentence of respondents Muhammad Khan and Ali Shan from life imprisonment to death, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel's contentions are that the facts of the case do call for normal penalty of death as there was no mitigating or extenuating circumstances for the dismissal of the revision petition seeking enhancement of sentence of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the learned High Court Judge in limine by way of a short order which has prejudged the petitioner's case; that the case of the prosecution on merits in Criminal Appeals Nos. 91 and 92/1983 and No. 101/1983 filed by the respondents against their conviction and sentence are still pending decision and as such the revision petition should have been heard alongwith the aforesaid appeals; that the occurrence is the result of a pre‑planned murder and, therefore, normal penalty of death should have been awarded by the learned trial Court.

3. According to the prosecution case it was on 21‑4‑1981 that the petitioner (complainant) alongwith Shah Nawaz deceased had gone to harvest the wheat crop at about 7 a.m. and for that purpose they had taken 4 sickles and 5 wooden pieces for sharpening and making forks. While they were sitting outside the shop of Muhammad Malik waiting for the job to be done, the accused respondent appeared, armed with pistols and all of a sudden, raising Lalkara, fired numerous shots at the deceased which hit him and he fell to the ground. On the alarm raised, the other witnesses appeared but the accused/ respondents ran away from the spot meanwhile.

4. According to the complainant, the motive for the murder is stated to be that Mst. Sayyan mother of the petitioner had deserted Shahnawaz deceased who had caused her some injuries with a knife and a case under section 307, P.P.C. was registered against the deceased who was challaned in that case. The accused being the real brothers of Mst. Sayyan, on account of this enmity, killed the deceased.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi who tried the case of the accused /respondents convicted them under section 302/34, P.P.C. for intentionally causing the death of Shahnawaz deceased and sentenced them to imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to undergo it for two years vide judgment dated 15‑6‑1983.

6. Having examined the prosecution case as it is at present we find that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Leave refused. Petition dismissed.

S . Q . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.