| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1959 SLG 126 1959 SLD 126 1959 PLD 996 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 1958, decision Date : 16th September 1959. hearing Date : 16th September 1959.
SHABIR AHMAD, JUSTICE, SAJJAD AHMAD, JAN, JUSTICE
Dost Muhammad Khan at Government expense for Appellant. Abdul Sami Pal, for A. G. for
Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 1958, decision Date : 16th September 1959. hearing Date : 16th September 1959.
SHABIR AHMAD, JUSTICE, SAJJAD AHMAD, JAN, JUSTICE
Dost Muhammad Khan at Government expense for Appellant. Abdul Sami Pal, for A. G. for
Respondent.
MST. RAMZAN BIBI
VS
THE STATE
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 99,100
(a) Confession Sole basis of conviction Confession to be accepted in entirety unless any part is proved untrue Improbable assertion in confession does not prove that it is false. Where the conviction of an accused person is based on a confession, the confession must be accepted in its entirety unless there is some definite evidence to show that some part of the confession is unture in which case that part may be kept out of consideration. The fact that an assertion in a confession is improbable cannot prove that it is false. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 99, 100 Thirdly, and S. 3017, Exception 1 Right of private defence of body against assault with intent to rape Woman successfully foiling assault, but killing culprit with sharp edged weapon when she had opportunity to escape---¬Woman, held, guilty, not under S. 302 but under S. 309, Part 1, P. P. C., for causing death on grave and sudden provocation --Plea of right of private defence of body rejected. The appellant woman, who was intended to be ravished by the deceased went out of the room in which the attempt to ravish her had been made and from outside picked up the weapon which she used to cause fatal injuries to the deceased. She was convicted under section 302, P. P. C. by the Court of Session. Held, that the fact that the appellant successfully foiled the attempt of the man who wanted to ravish her deprived her of the right of private defence but it cannot be said that when she attacked him she did not act on grave and sudden pro-vocation given to her by the man who wanted to ravish her. If a man attempts to have sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent, he gravely provokes her and if the attempt is made suddenly, she receives grave and sudden provocation. It is true that if she wanted she could have left the house without being further molested but the law does not deprive her of the concession that it gives to a person proved to have received grave and sudden provocation. In law the case of a person who claims to have acted in the exercise of right of private defence and of one who claims to have acted on grave and sudden pro¬vocation are governed by different rules.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492