SOHAIL KHAN and another vs AFZAL HUSSAIN and others
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby the death sentence of the respondent-convict was commuted to life imprisonment. The core legal questions pertained to the appreciation of evidence regarding the exact place of occurrence, the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party, and whether the convict was liable for qatl-e-amd or had exceeded the right of private defence. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the rival versions of the incident and the plea of self-defence warranted a thorough examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both criminal petitions to enable a reappraisal of the entire evidence on record. The key principle laid down is that where cross-versions involving a plea of self-defence and suppression of injuries are presented, leave to appeal may be granted for a comprehensive reappraisal of the evidence.
- Whether the convict can be held liable for qatl-e-amd or if he exceeded the right of claimed self-defence?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party warrant a reappraisal of evidence?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted for the reappraisal of evidence in a criminal case involving rival versions of an incident?
ORDER
' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, J.---It has inter alia been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that hatchet injuries were attributed to respondent-convict, caused on most vital part of the deceased i,e,, head and in fact attack was launched by the accused party on the complainant party near to/in front of their house.
2. In the connected Jail Petition preferred by the convict, who was sentenced to death which was commuted to life imprisonment by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment; on his behalf, it has been contended by the learned counsel that in fact as per evidence on record the incident had taken place in front of the house of the accused party where the complainant party had come to launch murderous attack in which injuries on head, chest and leg of the convict were inflicted with blunt weapon but the same were suppressed. The plea of self-defence was introduced by the convict, who urged that he was subjected to aggression, therefore, on this view of the matter, it is to be examined as to whether in the given circumstances the convict can be held liable for qatl-e- amd or he exceeded to the right of claimed self-defence.
3. In view of the above noted position, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal in both these Criminal Petitions for reappraisal of entire evidence. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.