Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Petition No. 369 of 1980, decided on 30th October, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 7‑5‑1980 passed by the High Court in the Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 1978).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.304, Part I‑‑Enhancement of sentence‑‑Conviction on charge of murder‑‑Sentence of 10 years and compensation of Rs.5,000 awarded by trial Court‑‑High Court on appeal reduced sentence to 5 years already undergone but enhanced compen sation to Rs.10,000‑‑Petition for leave to appeal seeking enhancement of sentence‑‑High Court having exercised a judicious direction in circumstances of case and four years having elapsed since impugned order was passed, leave to appeal refused.
S.M. Nazim, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Zaffar Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents No. 1 and 2.
M.A. Baqar and Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Date of hearing: 30th October, 1984.
This petition seeks enhancement of sentence passed on Bashir Ahmad by the trial Court for causing murder of Muhammad Yusaf. He was convicted under section 304, Part‑I, P.P.C. and ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and further to pay a compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000 to the heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The High Court after taking into account the fact such as the one‑fourth share holding in the tube‑well, the injuries caused to Riaz, the co‑accused, for which no explanation was given, the infliction of single spear blow to the deceased and the period he remained in detention and during trial as sufficient for reducing the sentence from ten years to nearly five years in detention which was already undergone. However, at the same time, the High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,000 to 10.000 as the earlier amount was not found adequate.
In the facts and circumstances of the case that it was a sudden fight and the fatal blow was caused in the heat of the moment, it is difficult to accept that the High Court did not exercise a judicious discretion in reducing the sentence. Added to it is the increase in the amount of compensation which further goes to show adequacy of the sentence as a whole. Besides four years have elapsed since the High Court had passed the impugned order and if the sentence had not been reduced, this respondent would have served out the sentence by now. We are conscious that it was not on account of any fault of the petitioner that this delay had occurred, but nonetheless the fact that this sentence would have been undergone.
For all these reasons, we do not find any substance in this petition which is dismissed.
M.I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer