TARIQ AHMED alias TAHRI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's criminal appeal against his conviction for murder. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the death of the deceased, Zahid Umer Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's plea—that he committed the act while intoxicated and thus lacked the requisite intent—constituted a valid defense to mitigate or absolve him of criminal liability. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's plea of intoxication was improbable and did not align with the evidence, specifically noting the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the deceased. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a plea of intoxication, when unsupported by credible evidence or logic in the context of the prosecution's case, is insufficient to negate criminal liability for a homicide.
- Can a plea of intoxication be accepted as a valid defense to negate criminal liability for murder when the circumstances of the crime render such a claim improbable?
- Does the admission of the commission of an offense under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, coupled with an improbable defense, justify the dismissal of a criminal appeal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 12-4-2002, whereby Criminal Appeal No,396 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. Facts briefly are that F.I.R. No,65 was got recorded at Police Station, Saddar, Gojra, on 18-3-1998 under section 302, P.P.C. At the instance of Muhammad Fazil Khan (P.W.7) for the murder of Zahid Umer Khan, his son. After usual investigation, challan was submitted against the petitioner and three others. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to substantiate its case. The petitioner in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Did not deny the commission of offence. The plea was taken that while committing this act he was intoxicated by liquor and as such did not know what he was doing. The learned trial Judge after thrashing the entire evidence brought on record acquitted three co-accused of the charges through judgment dated 1-2-2000 and convicted the petitioner under section 302(c), P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life with further direction to pay Rs,50,000 to legal heirs of the deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. He was also, convicted under section 201, P.P.C. And sentenced to seven years R.I.
With a fine of Rs,20,000 in default whereof he was to further undergo one year R.I.
3. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No,396 of 2000, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the deceased sustained as many as 14 injuries, the petitioner admitted the occurrence. However, he put forward his plea in the following words:-- "I, Zahid Umer Khan deceased and Muhammad Malik were fast friends. On the day of occurrence, we made a programme to take liquor from Pandhu Christian so we went to him and purchased liquor from him. We had been taking liquor there forsometime. Muhammad Malik took large quantity of liquor so he slept whereas I and Zahid Umer Khan deceased took some liquor with us and went to the cattle shed of Ayub Masih accused. There also we took liquor. We were completely under the influence of liquor. In such condition Zahid Umer Khan deceased started abusing me. He also attacked me. I was also under the influence of liquor. I picked up Chhuri lying nearby and inflicted injuries on the person of Zahid Umer Khan deceased who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. After sometime, I regained some sense and found that Zahid Umer Khan was, lying dead having injuries on his person and the blood-stained Chhuri was lying nearby. I realized that under the influence of liquor I had caused him injuries resulting into his death, therefore, I ran away from the spot leaving the dead body and blood-stained Chhuri at the spot. I was fast friend of Zahid Umer Khan decdased and had no animus against him. All this happened under the influence of liquor. I had not caused the disappearance of dead body of Zahid Umer Khan."
The aforestated plea taken into consideration in juxtaposition to the prosecution version falls to the ground. It does not appeal to reason and is totally improbable in the circumstances of this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference.
4. Resultantly, for what has been discussed above, criminal petition is dismissed and .
Cited by 3 cases
- Abdul Majeed alias Muhammad Iqbal vs The State 2021 YLR 2301
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs STATE and another PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 558
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus State 2019 YLRN 73