| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3156 1970 SLD 3156 = 1970 PCRLJ 776 |
Dacca High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1966, decided on 16th October 1969.
Presented By: A. M. Sayem and Ahsanuddin Choudhury, JJ
Ganesh Prasad v. Emperor A I It 19-11 Pat.52 rel. Abdur Rasheed and Maksudur Rahman for Appellants: A. T. Sadi for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1966, decided on 16th October 1969.
Presented By: A. M. Sayem and Ahsanuddin Choudhury, JJ
Ganesh Prasad v. Emperor A I It 19-11 Pat.52 rel. Abdur Rasheed and Maksudur Rahman for Appellants: A. T. Sadi for the State.
ZAINAL ABEDIN AND ANOTHER-Appellants
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 300, 304, 108
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), ----Ss. 300, Exception 2 & 304, Part I-Murder-Right of private defence of property-Accused thwarted in maintaining possession of their paddy field and com plainant party damaging accused's standing crop---Accused inflicting single injury on neck of one of complainant party with a dao (tree tapping weapon) causing his death-Accused, in circumstances, being protected by right of private defence, cannot be held guilty of murder-Accused in inflicting injury on vital part of body, how ever, could be presumed to have intended at least to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death-Offence, in circumstances, held, covered by S. 304, Part I-Conviction under S. 302, altered to that under S. 304, Part I. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), ---Ss. 108 & III-Abetment Act urged upon or aided not criminal initially-Abettor cannot be penalised for a different ultimate act committed by person abetted. The word "act" occurs twice in the opening clause and once in the following clause of section 111, Penal Code, 1860. It was argued that the word, though used twice in the opening clause, the Legislature used it there in two different senses. It was contended that occurring first, the word was used to include even a lawful act, though evidently occurring next in the same clause it could mean only a criminal act as it was meant to be while occurring in the second clause. The substance of the contention was that if a criminal act was committed as a result of a lawful act being urged on or aided by a person, the latter would be guilty of abetment of the criminal act or offence actually committed. Held, the word "act", wherever used in section 111, Penal Code, 1860, was meant to be used in the same sense, not only because of the section being the same but also because it would be unreasonable to think that the Legislature intended to punish urging on or aiding a lawful act if the person so urged upon or aided committed a different act which is unlawful criminal. Section 108, P. P. C. defines an abettor. Section 107, P P. C: defines what is abetment. The latter section says that a person abets the doing of a thing if he…