Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: CHIRAGH DIN VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
1988 S C M R 357
1988 S C M R 357
Present: Nasim Hasan Shah, S.A. Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
CHIRAGH DIN--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another--Respondents
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.15 of 1983, decided on 25th November, 1987.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11-12-1982 passed in Murder Reference No. 8 of 1980 and Criminal Appeal No.935 of 1979).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---S.302--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Sentence- Alteration of death sentence to life imprisonment, challenged--Reasoning which prevailed with High Court for awarding lesser punishment in circumstances of case being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.
Kh.A.Waheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Abid Hasan Minto, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Rana Muhammad Bashir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th November, 1987.
ORDER
S.A.NUSRAT, J.--By this petition, the complainant in the case seeks leave to appeal from the impugned judgment of the High Court with the prayer that the sentence of death awarded to the respondent by the trial Court is liable to be restored.
2. The respondent was tried for the murder of Mst. Sureyya and was sentenced to death and fine under section 302, P.P.C. However, on appeal, the learned High Court, as per impugned judgment, while maintaining the conviction, altered the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The order regarding payment of fine was also maintained.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court as also dead body, Mst. Munawar Bibi was done to death. The dead body was found to be in extreme state of decomposition from which it was inferred by the learned High Court, and rightly so when looked into the background of the evidence, that the occurrence had taken place much before the time as alleged by the prosecution. In order to satisfy ourselves, we have also examined the evidence in the case and find that other pieces of evidence are also such as would not have warranted conviction of the respondents.
In this view of the matter, we find no substance in this petition, which is dismissed.
M. I. /M-279/S Petition dismissed.