Muhammad Bakhsh

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Revision No. _____________/2001 Muhammad Bakhsh S/o Muhammad Yar, caste Channar, R/o Mouza Sikandar Wala, District Lodhran. ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State. 2. Rashid Ahmad S/o Qadir Bakhsh, caste Channar, R/o Mouza Sikandar Wala, District Lodhran. …..RESPONDENTS

REVISION PETITION: -U/S 439(6) R/w Sec-435 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the punishment of respondent No. 2, to death, and against the judgment dated 29.11.2000, pronounced by Ch. Nabi Ahmad, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran, by which the respondent No. 2 was convicted U/s 308 P.P.C.

PUNISHMENT: - (i)Sentenced to 14 years as Tazir (ii) Paymnet of Diyat amounting Rs. 270,493/50 to the legal heirs of deceased. F.I.R. No. 430/1998 P.S. Saddar, Lodhran

dated: 27.9.1998 U/s: 302/34 P.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their services and citations.

2.

That the F.I.R. (Ex.P. “B”) was lodged on the statement of Muhammad Bakhs (P.W-2). He stated that he is a resident of Mouza Sikandar Wala and is a cultivator. On. 27.9.98, at about 2.30 P.M. his brother Abdul Raziq (deceased) aged 14/15 years went to the tube-well of Malik Abdul Rasheed Mangal for taking bath and when he reached at the tube-well, then, all of a sudden, Qadir Bakhsh S/o Khuda Bakhsh & Muhammad Yousuf S/o Ghulam Farid empty handed and Rashid Ahmd respondent No. 2 armed with 12 bore pistol, all Channar by caste and residents of Mouza Sikandar Wala came over there. Qadir Bakhs raised Lalkara that Abdul Raziq would not go alive, in the meantime, the respondent No. 2 came forward and fired with his pistol hitting on the head of Adbul Raziq who fell down and succumbed to injuries. On the noise of fire, five PW’s Mehmood S/o Ahmad Yar (G.U.)and Faiz Ullah S/o Allah Yar (PW-3) attracted to the place of occurrence, who were cutting crops nearby, witnessed the occurrence. All the accused made their escape good. The motive behind this occurrence is the previous litigation between the parties, on which all the accused murdered Abdul Raziq in furtherance of their common intention. Certified copy of F.I.R. is Annexure “A”.

3.

That all the three accused were found guilty during the investigation and challan against all was submitted in the court of competent court jurisdiction. A formal charge was framed on 26.4.2000 U/s 302/34 P.P.C. The prosecution

produced P.W.1 to P.W.11 as oral evidence as well as Ex.P.A. to Ex.P.M. as documentary evidence. Statements U/s 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 20.11.2000. All the three accused desired to produce defence evidence, but only the respondent No. 2 opted to produce evidence in his defence. Abdur Rehman Inspector was produced as D.W.1 and also submitted a school leaving certificate reflecting the tender age of the respondent No. 2. The learned trial court pronounced the judgment. Copy of Charge-Sheet, Prosecution Evidence, statement under section 342 Cr.P.C., Defence Evidence and Judgment are Annexures “B, C, D, E & F” respectively. 4.

That the conviction of respondent No. 2 is liable to be enhanced inter alia on the following: GROUNDS i)

That the case was fully proved against the respondent No. 2, but the learned trial court has given him the undue benefit of tender age.

ii)

That the learned trial court could not distinguish between the “Adult” and “Major” in legal sense.

iii)

That the learned trial court could not evaluate the essence of Sec-83 of P.P.C.

iv)

That the act done and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, proved the desperate attitude of respondent No. 2.

v)

That the School Certificate produced in defence evidence by the respondent No. 2 is a forged one. On the other hand, it can not be admitted in evidence without proving it by the maker.

vi)

That the birth certificate of respondent No. 2 depicts the age as 21 years, 7 months and 18 days, which is Annexure “G”.

vii)

That respondent No. 2, while making statement U/s 342-Cr.P.C. himself told his age as 17/18 years.

viii) That the case must be decided under the parameter determined under the law and accused can not be a accommodated on the basis of academic discussions.

ix)

That the provisions of Sec-308 P.P.C. are attracted in the case of a “MAJOR”.

x)

That case of Qisas is proved against the respondent No. 2 and no lesser punishment can be awarded.

xi)

That a great miscarriage of justice is caused to the petitioner.

xii)

That the impugned judgment is against natural justice and law of equity.

xiii) That the impugned judgment is against the prevailing law and norms of justice. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the punishment of FOURTEEN YEARS awarded to the respondent No. 2 may please be enhanced to death sentence with fine/compensation. Any other order, direction or relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioner, Dated: __________ (Muhammad Bakhsh)

Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first Revision Petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Rev. No. _____________/2001 Muhammad Bakhsh

Vs.

The State, etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Bakhsh S/o Muhammad Yar, caste Channar, R/o Mouza Sikandar Wala, District Lodhran.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled Revision Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day

of February 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Rev. No. _____________/2001 Muhammad Bakhsh

Vs.

The State, etc.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES

1

Opening Sheet.

2

Criminal Revision.

3

Affidavit

4

Certified copy of F.I.R.

A

5

Copy of Charge-Sheet.

B

6

Copy of Prosecution Evidence.

C

7

Statement U/s 342-Cr.P.C.

D

8

Defence Evidence.

E

9

Judgment.

F

10

Birth Certificate.

G

11

Vakalatnama

PAGES

PETITIONER, Dated: ____________

Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176