Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 2218 1992 SLD 2218 1992 PLJ 418
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crminal Appeal No! 165 of 1991, partly accepted on 13.4.1992 (approved for reporting on 12.5.1992) [On appeal from judgment Dated 14.2.1987, of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Crl. Appeal No. 151 of 1984.] Date of hearing: 13.4.1992.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ, MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Mr. M.S. Mehboob, Advocate, Supreme Court for Appellant. CH. M. Akram, Advocate, Supreme Court for State

MUHAMMAD AFZAL--Appellant

VS

THE STATE--Respondent

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302,304

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLVof 1860)- —-S. 302 read with Section 304 Part I and Exception 4 to Section 300-Murder--Offence of--Conviction for-Challenge to-Appellant was admitted in hospital for injuries immediatley after occurrence-Injury on his head was bleeding-It is very rare and highly improbable to inflict such wound with friendly hand-Time gap between occurrence and appellants admission in hospital is so short that none of these injuries could have been manipulated—Held: On account of suddenness, lack of premeditation and other circumstances, case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 PPC and offence committed by appellant was under Section 304 Part I PPC-Appeal partly allowed and conviction altered from under Section 302 to that under Section 304 Part I PPC. [Pp.419420]A,B,C,DE JUDGMENT Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C J.--Leave to appeal was granted in this appeal through jail in a murder case wherein the appellant was found guilty under Section 302 PPC and awarded sentence of life imprisonment as well as fine of Rs. 2.000/-.Leave was granted for the examination as under:-- In view of the fact that motive lay more with the complainant party than with the accused, that their encounter was more by chance than by design, that the accused convict had also incised injuries, the evidence requires reappraisal in order to reasonably exclude the possibility of accused/convict acting in exercise of his right of defence of his person, or in a sudden fight without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to those parts of the judgment of the High Court wherein it was observed that the injuries on the person of the accused were either self-sustained or self-suffered. One of the main reasons which influenced such findings by the High Court was that the doctor had not excluded the possibility of the injuries on the accused being so self-suffered. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, brought to our notice the equally strong opinion of the doctor that the said injuries could as well have been caused by an adversary. The controversial injuries on the person of the accused were described by the…
🔒
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