Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 2157 1961 SLD 2157 = 1961 PLD 358
Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board, Karachi
Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 1960/Confirmation Case No. 65 of 1960, decided on 10th March 1961.  
Presented By: Abdul Hamid and Ilahi Bakhsh Khamisani, JJ
Pirzada Abdul Sattar for Appellants .   Azizullah K. Sheikh for
Respondent.   Dates of hearing : 28th February 1961 and 1st March 1961.  

TOOH AND ANOTHER-Appellants  

VERSUS

  THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: S. 34

(a) Conviction-   Witness not shown to be at enmity with accus ed nor found to be related to deceased in any way-Testimony of such witness is sufficient to sustain conviction.   (b) Penal Code (XL P of 1860),   S. 34-Direct evidence of pre -consultation not always necessary-Common intention can develop immediately before commission of offence or even during its commission.   Under section 34 of the Penal Code, 1867 evidence of pre-consultation on the part of the persons concerned in the commission of the offence is necessary, but direct evidence of pre-consultation is not always necessary. Common intention to commit an offence may be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Such intention can also develop immediately before the commission of the offence, or even during its commission as well.   Where two accused who were brothers, went after the deceased with Lathis in their hands in order to avenge a previous fight and both of them opened the attack upon him, inflicted five wounds on his head and seven on the other parts of the body and three of the wounds on the head proved fatal, and they were convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 it was contended that in the absence of any evidence indicating pre-consultation, section 34 could not be invoked:   Held, that section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 was applicable to the case. If one of the inflictors of the blows sees that his partner is inflicting blows on the head of the victim and he himself goes on inflicting blows on other parts of the body knowing fully well that the blows on the head are likely to cause death, he shares the intention of his accomplice, even if he himself does not inflict any blow on the head. If the consequences of the blows on the head are known to be death, he can in law be held to have also intended those consequences. Each of the two accused began to share the intention of the other, if not earlier, at least during the commission of the offence.   (c) Penal Code (XLD' of 1860),   Ss. 299 & 300, firstly to fourthly-Difference.   The boundaries between section 299 and part firstly to fourthly of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register