| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3305 = 1975 SLD 3305 = 1975 PLD 682 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 635 and Murder Reference No. 194 of 1973, decid ed on 29th November 1974.
Presented By: M: S. H. Quralshi and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ
Fazal alias Faja v. The State 1971 P Cr. L J 602 ; Bahar Khan etc. v. The State 1972 P Cr. L J 411 and Riaz Beg v. The State 1973 P Cr. L J 111 distinguished. M. Anwar for Appellant. Solah-ud-Din Mustafa for A.-G. for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 635 and Murder Reference No. 194 of 1973, decid ed on 29th November 1974.
Presented By: M: S. H. Quralshi and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ
Fazal alias Faja v. The State 1971 P Cr. L J 602 ; Bahar Khan etc. v. The State 1972 P Cr. L J 411 and Riaz Beg v. The State 1973 P Cr. L J 111 distinguished. M. Anwar for Appellant. Solah-ud-Din Mustafa for A.-G. for the State.
JAVAID-Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302, 300, 304
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302, 300, thirdly & 304 -Murder-Not necessary, under S. 300, thirdly, for prosecution to prove that accused caused injury with intention of causing death-Prosecution to prove only that accused bad intention to cause injury which he did and that the injury was suffi cient in ordinary course of nature to cause death-Once injury, sufficient to cause death, established, accused presumed to have intended natural and probable consequence of injury-Mere fact that injury was not inflicted on vital part of body does not reduce offence from one under S. 302 to one under S. 304-tnjury 41" deep caused on buttock with knife having blade 4" long and cutting a large artery-Accused, held, guilty of offence under S. 302-Sentence of death, however, reduced, in circumstances of case, to that of transportation for life. Merely because the injury was not on what is usually termed as a vital part of the body, would not mean that the offence must necessarily fall under section 304 and not under section 302, P. P. C. In an offence covered by the head "3rdly" of section 300, P. P. C., it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused had caused the injury with the intention of causing death. All that is necessary for the prosecution is to establish that the accused had the intention of causing the injury, which was actually caused to the deceased, and that that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In fact, the assumption of the guilt under head "3rdly" has to be purely objective. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death or an injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or even that there was no knowledge that the act would be likely to cause death. The proof of the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found present is sufficient. The subsequent question whether the injury caused was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death becomes a matter of purely objective inference. Once it is established that the injury caused was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the…