Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 4853 = 1966 SLD 4853 = 1966 PLD 8
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 1064 of 1963, decided on 20th May1965,
Presented By: Muhammad Gul, J
Ghulam Qadir v. The State P L D 1959 Lah. 753 ref.   Kh. Sarfraz Ahmad for Petitioners.   Mohd. Jaffer for the State.  

INAYATULLAH AND ANOTHER---Petitioners  

VERSUS

  THE STATE---Respondent  

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 307,323,324,96,97,99

  Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307, 323, 324, read with Ss. 96 & 97-Mere fact that complainant party suffering greater number of injuries than those suffered by accused-Not sufficient to hold accused as aggressor-Prosecution failing to explain injuries on person of accused-Such omission makes prosecution version highly doubtful and lends support to accused's plea of self-defence.   Criminal trial-Safe administration of criminal justice Court should draw its own inference flowing from evidence and circumstances and not be deterred by reason of incompleteness of tale given by each party.   Syed Ali v. Niharan Mohallah P L D 1962 S C 502 ref:   Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 96, 97 & 99-Right of private defence-Extent cannot be weighed by golden scales-Courts view with indulgence acts of a person who in heat of moment pursues his defence a little further than is absolutely necessary.   Date of hearing: 20th May 1965.  JUDGMENT   Faiz Alam, his son Inayatullah and Abdul Latif were jointly tried by a Magistrate 1st Class at Sialkot empowered under section 30, Cr. P.C., 1898, for offences under sections 307, 324 and 323/34, P. P. C. for having made, in furtherance of their common intention, murderous assault on Hidayatullah (P. W. 2) and his father Khurshid Alam (P. W. 3) causing them injuries of diverse kinds, inter alia with a dangerous weapon (sword). Faiz Alam was given benefit of doubt by the trial Magistrate and acquitted. Inayatullah and Abdul Latif were, however, each convicted and sentenced as follows:   Section 307/34, P. P. C. Three years' R. I.   Section 324/34, P. P. C. One year R. I.   Section 323/34, P. P. C. Six months' R. I,   The sentences were to run concurrently. On appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, each petitioner was held responsible for his individual act and, therefore; charge of murderous assault in furtherance of common intention failed. Accordingly, the conviction of Inayatullah under section 323/34, P. P. C. was set aside but his convictions and sentences under sections 307 and 324, P. P. C. were maintained. Abdul Latif on the other hand, was, acquitted…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register