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 dated: 27.9.1998

P.S. Saddar, Lodhran 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, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 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 PAGES

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

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