| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 397 1956 SLD 397 = 1956 PLD 395 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Confirmation Case No. 34 of 1951 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 297; 298 of 1951, decided in January 1952.
Before Constantine, C. J. and Muhammad Bakhsh, J
H. T. Raymond for Appellant No. 1. Ihsanul Haq for Appellant No. 2. Inamullah, Public Prosecutor for the Crown.
Confirmation Case No. 34 of 1951 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 297; 298 of 1951, decided in January 1952.
Before Constantine, C. J. and Muhammad Bakhsh, J
H. T. Raymond for Appellant No. 1. Ihsanul Haq for Appellant No. 2. Inamullah, Public Prosecutor for the Crown.
JAN MUHAMMAD and another
VERSUS
THE CROWN
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 120
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 180
P L D 1956 Karachi 395 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 120-A-Abetment to conspiracy-Whether a substantive offence. Conspiracy is one of the forms of abetment and it makes no difference that conspiracy by way of abetment requires an overt act, whereas conspiracy under section 120-A P. P. C. to commit the illegal act requires no overt act. Abet ment is just as much a substantive offence as is conspiracy under section 120-A, P. P. C. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 180-Whether applicable to cases of criminal conspiracy. Conspiracy equally with abetment comes within the terms of section 180, Criminal P. C. The reason why section 120-A, P P. C. was not inserted as an illustration to section 180 Criminal P. C. is that section 120, P. P. C. was enacted in 1913, while the illustrations to section 180, Criminal P. C. date as far back as 1882 and as such it was impossible to insert section 120-A, P. P. C. in an illustration with the body of section 180, Criminal P. C. The two appellants in the present case were charged in the alternative either with conspiracy at K to murder N and with murdering N at S under sections 120-B, P. P. C, and 302, P. P. C. or with murdering N under section 302, P. P. C. They were convicted by the Sessions judge at S in agreement with all the four assessors under section 120-B, P. P. C. The counsel for the appellant contended that the Sessions Judge at S, had no jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been taken place at K. Held, the Sessions judge at S had jurisdiction to try the charge of conspiracy. Emperor v. Pursumal Gerimal and another A I R 1938 Sind 108 dissented from. JUDGMENT CONSTANTINE, C. J.-This case is before us by way of appeal and for. confirmation of the death sentences imposed upon the two appellants. They were charged in the alternative either with conspiracy at Karachi to murder Nishanali and with murdering Nishanali in Nawabshah District near Bandhi Rail way Station under section 120-B and section 302, Pakistan P, C., or with so murdering Nishanali under section 302, P L D…