| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 412 1956 SLD 412 = 1956 PLD 440 |
Supreme Appellate Court, Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1956, decided on 7th November 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 22nd December 1955, in Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1955.)
(Appellate Jurisdiction) present : Muhammad Munir, C. J, M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
Manzur Qadir, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, (M. Ismail Bhatti, Advocate, Supreme Court with hint), instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for Appellants. S. A. Mahmud and M. Anwar, Advocates, Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for
Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1956, decided on 7th November 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 22nd December 1955, in Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1955.)
(Appellate Jurisdiction) present : Muhammad Munir, C. J, M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
Manzur Qadir, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, (M. Ismail Bhatti, Advocate, Supreme Court with hint), instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for Appellants. S. A. Mahmud and M. Anwar, Advocates, Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another-Appellants
VERSUS
THE STATE------Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 300
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 236, 237
P L D 1956 Supreme Court (Pale.) 440 Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S. 300, Exception 1 Provocation by wanton injury-Plea not available to person other then the injured. The theory of provocation by wanton injury cannot be imported into a case where the accused raising the plea of provocation were not themselves injured but alleged that a servant of their party had beet; injured by the deceased, which servant was neither one of the accused nor a witness on behalf of the defence in the case. The offence of murder therefore could not be reduced to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Kwaku Mensah L R, A C 1946 at p. 83 ref. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 236 and 237 read with S. 537, Explanation-Element of doubt in regard o which of several offences committed-Charge under Ss. 302/ 149, P. Y. C.-Conviction of two of accused under S. 302 legal` -No prejudice. Where six accused were charged under sections 302/149, P. P. C., two of the accused having been proved to have fired the two fatal shots which caused the death of two persons Held, that conviction of the two aforesaid accused for murder under section 302, P. P. C. direct was, by virtue of sections - 236 and 237, Criminal P. C., not illegal although they were not directly charged under that section. There was, on the evidence, an element of doubt in regard to the precise offence-whether under section 302 or sections 302/149, P. P. C. committed, which was sufficient to justify, within the terms of section 236, Criminal P. C., the framing of a 'charge under sections 302/149, P. P. C. and convicting the two accused under section 302 P. P. C., on the basis of direct evidence of eye-witnesses. It is true that at the same time, specific charges under sections 302, P. P. C. might also have been framed against the two accused individually, but, by section 236 Cr. P. C. the Court is expressly permitted to frame a charge in respect of any of the several offences which might have been charged. By the application of section 237, Criminal P. C., a conviction can legally be obtained, in a case of this kind, of any offence…