| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3014 1970 SLD 3014 = 1970 PCRLJ 59 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1954, decided on 1st December 1954.
Presented By: Muhammad Munir, C. J., A. S. M. Akram and M. Shahabuddin, JJ
S. Jamil Hussin Rizvi, Advocate Federal Court instructed by S. Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Appellants. Mahmud Ali, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Nazir-ud- Din, Attorney for the Crown.
Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1954, decided on 1st December 1954.
Presented By: Muhammad Munir, C. J., A. S. M. Akram and M. Shahabuddin, JJ
S. Jamil Hussin Rizvi, Advocate Federal Court instructed by S. Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Appellants. Mahmud Ali, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Nazir-ud- Din, Attorney for the Crown.
SALEH AND ANOTHER-Appellants
VERSUS
THE CROWN-Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Chief Court of Sind, Karachi, dated the 23rd November 1953, in Confirmation Case No. 21 and Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1953). Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-Question whether evidence in case presented a reasonable possibility that accused acted in exercise of his right of private defence-Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court td consider question. Date of hearing: 1st December 1954. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C. J.-This is an appeal, by special leave, in a criminal matter. The two appellants, Saleh and Khair Muhammad, together with eight other persons, were tried by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on charges of murder and attempted murder. The learned Judge convicted the appellants alone under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced them to death on the former and to seven years' imprisonment on the latter charge. The appellants appealed to the Chief Court of Sind where Muhammad Bachal and Muhammad Bakhsh, JJ. disagreed as to the correctness of the convictions, the former being of the opinion that the appeal be dismissed and the latter that the appeal be allowed and the convictions and sentences set aside. The case was, therefore, heard by a 3rd Judge, Hassanally Agha, J., who agreed with the opinion of Muhammad Bachal, J. and dismissed the appeal. Special leave to appeal was granted by this Court on the question whether the evidence in the case presented a reasonable possibility of the appellants' case being true, namely, that they acted in exercise of the right of private defence of person and property. The facts which led to these convictions are perfectly simple. The appellants are Pitafts of village Hiji Mehwal, Taluka Tando Allahyar. Included in the area of the adjacent village Deh Khokhar in Survey No. 70, half of which is owned by Haji Ghulam Hussain, while the other half was the property of an evacuee Tahil Ram. After the Partition, Tahil Ram's share was allotted by the Rehabilitation Authorities to a servant of Haji Ghulam Hussain, and thus on the day of the incident, the whole of this survey number was in the possession of Haji Ghulam Hussain and…