Law: Arms Act, 2013

Section: 302(b), 302(c), 15

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 544-A, 382-B, 340(2), 265-C

SUMMARY i. The crucial issue is to determine who initiated the incident, who was the aggressor, and whether the appellant fired in the exercise of his right of private defence. These are the central matters which this Court must examine with care, for their determination will decisively affect the question of liability and the ultimate conclusion as to where the fault truly lies. ii. The circumstances show that both sides played a part in the escalation. The appellant was not free from blame, yet the conduct of the deceased also contributed to the incident. iii. The principal issue for determination is whether the trial court exercised its discretion correctly in awarding the sentence, having regard to the unique circumstances of the case, including the inter-relationship of the parties and the damage suffered by both sides. iv. Having considered the totality of the evidence, the nature of the incident, the role of the appellant, and the circumstances under which the tragedy occurred, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed under Section 302(b) PPC calls for reconsideration.   The appellant, Faiz-ur-Rehman, was convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) PPC and Section 15 of the Arms Act for the murder of two persons during a confrontation arising out of a family dispute. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused fired at the deceased, resulting in their deaths. The defence claimed that the appellant acted in self-defence and had also sustained serious firearm injuries in the same incident. The case involved a counter-version (cross-version), where both parties claimed aggression from the other side. The High Court found that: The incident was a sudden mutual confrontation arising from a family dispute. Both sides were armed and actively participated in the incident. The appellant also sustained serious injuries, which the prosecution failed to properly explain. The offence did not reflect premeditated murder but a sudden occurrence in the heat of passion. The trial court failed to properly appreciate the mitigating circumstances. Final Decision Conviction maintained Sentence altered from 302(b)…