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. 30‑R of 1985, decided on 29th June, 1985.
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 25‑3‑1985, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 426‑‑Leave to appeal sought against suspension of death sentence and release of accused on bail‑‑No case made out for interference with order passed by High Court in exercise of its discretionary powers‑‑Petition dismissed.
Muhammad Jafar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. Nawaz Abbasi, A.A.‑G. with Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Rana Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with K.E. Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 29th June, 1985.
The petitioner who is complaint in the case, is aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court, whereby, on an application made under section 426, Cr.P.C., the sentence of death passed by the trial Court under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C., against Muhammad Irfan, one of the two convicts in the case, was suspended and he was admitted to bail.
2. The firearm injuries resulting in the death of the deceased had been attributed to the co‑convict and not to Muhammad Irfan. The reason for holding him vicariously liable for the murder as given by the trial Court was:
"It is in evidence of Muhammad Rashid and Muhammad Aslam P.Ws that he came to the spot in Suzuki alongwith his co‑accused. This shows that he had an intention common with his co‑accused. On getting down from it there he immediately came to the deceased and gave him slaps and also raised Lalkara addressing him that they would teach him a lesson for having had given beating to his co‑accused."
From this, the learned trial Court concluded:
"By so doing he instigated his co‑accused who fired at the deceased. He is, therefore, equally liable for the act done by him in view of section 114, P.P.C."
It is in this background that the impugned order was passed.
3. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order passed inn the exercise of discretionary power. The petition is dismissed.
M . I . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer