Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3146 = 1975 SLD 3146 = 1975 PCRLJ 1210
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1974 connected with Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 1971, decided on 9th July 1974.
Presented By: Noorul Arfin and Mushtak Ali Kazi, JJ
M. Zafar Khan for Appellant. S. Murtaza Hussain for the State.

RAMZAN-Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 307, 302, 300, 324

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 50

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)  Ss. 307, 302 & 300, Exception 2 read with Criminal procedure Code (V of 1,898), S. 59-Accused, on seeing persons coming for his arrest, running after causing injuries-Offence committed cognizable and non-bailable-Right of arrest of such person extended to private persons in whose presence offence committed-Accused inflicting knife blow to avoid arrest-Not entitled to right of private defence in circumstances. If any one after commission of cognizable and non-bailable offence tries to escape, any private person who sees the offender either committing the offence or running away immediately after the commission, would be entitled to arrest him and the offender cannot resist such arrest nor can he plead any right of private defence for causing harm to such a person to escape arrest. Right of private defence available only against an offence and not against any physical act which may not be to one's liking. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 307 & 324-Offences under sections-Determining factors. To determine whether an act falls within the ambit of section 307, P. P. C. the questions to be considered are, the nature of the act done, the intention of the offender and the circumstances under which the act is done. Where there is apparently no intention to commit murder, the nature of the injuries caused is simple, and there is nothing to suggest that but for some intervening act the offender would have fulfilled his intention and committed the murder, offence would fall under section 324, P. P. C. only. (c) Criminal trial  Judgment-Trial of two cases conducted separately-Evidence recorded separately but disposed of by one judgment-Court, held, should record separate judgments when cases tried separately or write a detailed judgment in one case and a subsidiary judgment in another-Not permissible however to refer to evidence recorded in one case in judgment of other case-Trials would nonetheless be not vitiated if other legal requirement fulfilled. The Court should always record separate judgments in Criminal cases where separate trials are held. Even where the cases are closely connected and could be regarded as part…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register