Case Details

Citation(s)
1954 SLG 111 1954 SLD 111 1954 PLD 89
Lahore High Court
Appeal No. 531 of 1953, decided on 5th November 1953, from the order of Fazl-i-Ilahi, Additional Sessions Ridge. Lyallpur at Jhang, dated the 19th May 1953, convicting the appellant
MUHAMMAD, JAN, J
Sh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. Ghias Muhammad, for the Advocate-General for
Respondent

RAHAT HUSSAIN

VS

THE CROWN

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 100,101

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 100 & 101---Self defense­---Deceased first attacking with stick--Apprehension of simple hurt -Right of self-defence does not extend to causing of death. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD JAN, J.--Rahat Hussain, aged about 16 years, of Kot Isa Shah has been convicted under section 304 Part I. P. P. C and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprison­ment. He has appealed. The prosecution case is that on 5th July 1952, at about 7 a.m., Akhtar Hussain, who was related to the appellant, was talking to Allah Bakhsh (P. W. 5) in front of the shop of Rahim Bakhsh (P. W. 6). He was saying disparaging things about Maulvi Ishrat Hussain who was related to him and to the appellant. The appellant told Akhtar Hussain not to speak against the Maulvi whereupon Akhtar Hussain abused the appellant and struck a blow at him with a lathi which fell on the shoulder of Allah Bakhsh and caused him a simple hurt. The appellant picked up a danda and struck Akhtar Hussain on the head with such' force that his skull was fractured and he died a few hours afterwards. There were two fractures to the skull besides three other injuries which are described by Dr. Ghaus Muhammad (P. W. 2), who performed the post-mortem examination, as contused areas on the hip, the buttock and the thigh, 3" x 3" x 6" x 4" and 4" x 1" respectively. He hid two abrasions also. The appellant's brother Waqar Hussain was also tried with him but was acquitted. The deceased appears to have been subjected to a fairly severe beating, perhaps by more than one man. The other man in the case, namely, Waqar Hussain, was acquitted because the prosecution witnesses did not say that he had struck the deceased and, so far as the appellant is concerned, they said that he had given only one blow to the deceased on the head. The impression is created that they were won over. Both the fractures of the skull under injuries Nos. 1 and 2, which were considered to be the result of lathi blows, were stated by the doctor to be individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore even if it be believed that the appellant caused only one injury to the deceased on the head, he inflicted an injury…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492