UMAR HAYAT and another vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners in a criminal case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were alleged to have participated in the attack by holding the deceased and causing injury to a witness, were entitled to bail despite the fatal blow being attributed to a co-accused. The Court held that the petitioners' active participation and presence at the scene, coupled with the prior ambush of the complainant party, demonstrated a clear common intention to commit the crime. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, ruling that under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, each participant in a criminal act done in furtherance of a common intention is liable for the act as if they had committed it alone. The judgment reaffirms that the ingredients of common intention—a criminal act by several persons, a shared objective, and active participation—preclude the grant of bail when these elements are prima facie established.
- What are the three main ingredients required to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the participation of an accused in holding a victim while a co-accused delivers a fatal blow constitute a criminal act in furtherance of common intention?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The learned counsel seeks post arrest bail petitioners in FIR No,124/08, dated 7.6.2008, under Sections 302 and 34 PPC, registered at P.S. Massan, District Jhang.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R, complainant Muhammad Faraz, Khizar Hayat (father) and Muhammad Faraz (brother) were coming home their animals had grazed. They were attacked by Umar Hayat petitioner armed with sota, co-accused Bahadur armed with hatchet, petitioner Muzaffar armed with Phaora and co-accused Abdul Shakoor alias Bala who were way-laying near their cattle-shed. Co-accused Abdul Shakoor raised lalkara, whereupon petitioner Muzaffar held Umar Draz while co-accused Bahadur gave a hatchet blow which hit Umar Draz on front side of his chest, who fell down. Petitioner Umar Hayat caused a sota injury upon Khizar Hayat, father of the complainant which hit him on his left arm.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, medical report of Khizar Hayat indicates that the blow attributed to Petitioner No,1 caused only swelling whereas role attributed to Petitioner No,2 had not caused any injury to deceased or injured Khizar Hayat as allegation against him is only to hold Umar Draz, deceased.
I have heard and pondered upon arguments of the learned counsel. Roles of both petitioners clearly show that they played overt acts and their participation in the occurrence is not denied either. The F.I.R stands registered under Sections 302 and 34 PPC. At this point, to appreciate the content and spirit of Section 34 PPC, same may be reproduced for convenience below: "When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone."
Both petitioners performed their contributory and respective roles. They were also present at the scene of occurrence in furtherance of their common intention to kill the deceased. The conduct and presence of petitioners clearly show that they acted in furtherance of common intention. There are three main ingredients of Section 34 PPC--
1. A criminal act must be done by several persons;
2. Criminal acts must be to further the common intention of all; and
3. There must be participation of all persons in furthering the common intention.
4. In my humble view, above ingredients are present in the instant case. Petitioner No,1 inflicted a sota blow on wrist of the deceased's father Khizar Hayat, whereas, Petitioner No,2 held deceased in his clasp, thereafter, co-accused Bahadur caused fatal hatchet blow to the deceased. Prior to this, all the accused including petitioners together ambushed and intercepted the complainant party to achieve their common objective, etc.. Thus, apparently, the petitioners shall also be deemed liable for the act done by the co-accused Bahadur. Therefore, in view of the above grounds, this bail application is dismissed.