Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Petition No. 328 of 1983 and Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1984, decided on 19th February, 1984.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21‑8‑1983, passed in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 1971).
‑‑‑Ss.326 & 104‑‑Right of private defence‑‑Sentence‑‑Complainant himself appearing before Supreme Court and stating that incident took place 11 years ago; that accused was related to him and had young children and that he had forgiven him from his heart‑‑Accused praying for reduction in sentence‑‑Advocate‑General having no objection if sentence reduced‑‑Case, held, a fit case for reduction of sentence in circumstances. [Sentence].
Abdul Majeed Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Khalil Ramdey, Additional Advocate‑General for the State. Date of hearing: 19th February, 1984.
Ihsanullah petitioner has applied for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing his appeal, but reducing his sentence of imprisonment from 5 years' to 2 years' R.I.
2. He is alleged to have shot at Shah Nawaz complainant with a pistol which resulted in a grazed injury to the complainant. The petitioner's counsel submitted that according to F.I.R. itself Shah Nawaz complainant is stated to have entered his (Ihsanullah petitioner's) land and prevented him from ploughing it. He urged that this gave rise to the right of defence of property to the petitioner who, as provided by section 104, P.P.C., could thereafter inflict any injury, short of causing death to the trespasser. It may be added that the complainant has himself appeared before us in the Court and submitted that the incident took place 11 years ago; that the accused is related to him and has young children and that he has forgiven him from his heart. The petitioner's counsel prays for the reduction of his sentence.
3. We issued notice to the Advocate‑General. He appeared in response thereto and submits that he has no objection to the reduction in sentence. We are of the view that in the above‑noted circumstances this is a fit case for reduction of sentence. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and allow the same to the extent that the appellant's sentence is reduced to that already undergone by him. tic shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in some other case.
M. Z. M. Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer