| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 3675 = 1957 SLD 3675 = 1957 PLD 31 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 1956, decided on 5th October 1956, from the order of Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad, Sessions judge, Rawalpindi, dated the 17th April 1956.
Presented By: Shabir Ahmad and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ
M. B. Zaman for Appellant. Mian Mushtaq Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General for
Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 1956, decided on 5th October 1956, from the order of Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad, Sessions judge, Rawalpindi, dated the 17th April 1956.
Presented By: Shabir Ahmad and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ
M. B. Zaman for Appellant. Mian Mushtaq Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL-Convict-Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)
Section: 105
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 300
(a) Evidence Act (1 of 1872)---- ----S. 105-Grave and sudden provocation-Burden on accused to prove. Exception-Yet in absence of affirmative proof, accused may have benefit of doubt raised on examining prosecution evidence side by side with defence version-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 300, Exception 1. As provided in section 105 of the Evidence Act, the burden to prove the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any one of the Exceptions to section 300, P. P. C. is on the accused. While the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances, there will be cases in which the accused might not have succeeded in affirmatively proving the existence of those circumstances, and yet on examining the prosecution case side by side with the defence a reasonable doubt might be created in the mind of the judge regarding the guilt of the accused. The benefit of it will go to the accused whether as a matter of right or of prudence, for the burden to prove all the ingredients of a crime remains on the prosecu tion from the beginning to the end. Whatever be the law in England (Woolmington's case), the law in this country is embodied in a Statute and has to be given its plain grammatical meaning irrespective of any considerations of "caution" or "prudence". Sardar Ali v. The Crown P L D 1953 F C 93 ref. (b) Interpretation of Statutes------ ----Statute involving punishment of death-Plain language rule may not be departed from merely on that account. There is no principle of interpretation of statutes which authorises departure from the plain language of the section merely because it applies to cases which involve the loss of liberty or the life of persons accused of criminal charges. (c) Sentence------ ----Murder on provocation but not on grave and sudden-Death may be commuted to transportation for life. JUDGMENT YAQUB ALI, J.-------This will dispose of an appeal preferred by Muhammad Iqbal against his conviction and sentence to the extreme penalty of death by the Sessions Judge, Rawal pindi, and the reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal…