Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG 494 1962 SLD 494 1962 PLD 502
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 2-D of 1962, decided on 3rd October 1962.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., FAZLE-AKBAR AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
S. K. Basu Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. M. R. Khan Attorney for Appellant. Abdus Salam Khan Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mahboobur Rahman Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. A. Rab Attorney for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Abdul

SYED ALI BEPARI--Appellant

VS

NIBARAN MOLLAH AND others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) Special leave to appeal to Supreme Court------Granted to private complainant in case of acquittal'-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3). (b) Private defence, right of----Facts disclosing occurrence of "free fight" between complainant's and accused's party-Right of private defence neither specifically pleaded nor established by evidence but only put forth by suggestions in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses-Plea of right of private defence not upheld ­Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 100--[Safdar Ali's case P L D 1953 F C 93 considered.] (c) "Free fight"-----Parties do not generally come out with true story-Incompleteness of tale should not deter Court from drawing proper inferences from evidence and circumstances-[Prosecution version that fight took place in complainant's land rejected, Court holding that the venue was accused's land, nevertheless, sentences imposed by trial Court were upheld in appeal from acquittal]. (d) "Free fight"-----Right of private defence-Plea inadmissible. In a case where no satisfactory evidence was forthcoming that either party involved in a fight was in exclusive or undisputed possession of the plot of land in question, held, that a legitimate conclusion could be drawn that both parties went to enforce their right or supposed right in the disputed land and for this purpose they armed themselves in full expectation of an armed conflict. Hence judging from their acts and conduct it could safely be said that each party anticipated resistance from the other and were, therefore, determined to have a trial of strength. In such circumstances, it will be impossible to say that the accused party were acting on the defensive merely or in other words were acting in the exercise of any right of private defence of person or property. From the state of relations between the parties, it was also clear that both the parties were prepared to fight and that a very trivial incident was sufficient to bring them into conflict. It was reasonable to infer that in entering upon that conflict each party knowingly and deliberately took upon itself the risk of the encounter. In circumstances such as those no question of right of private…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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