MUHAMMAD DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partly allowed a criminal appeal by converting the petitioners' convictions from section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with corresponding reductions in sentences, while maintaining convictions under sections 452 and 323 read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether common intention or similar intention was established among the petitioners during the assault and whether the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' subsequent conduct demonstrated a clear common or developed intention to cause grievous hurt upon entering the victim's house, and that the acquittal of co-accused did not warrant the petitioners' acquittal given specific incriminating evidence against them. The Court laid down that concurrent factual findings based on proper appreciation of ocular and medical evidence by lower courts will not be disturbed in the absence of a contravention of law or principle, and that the acquittal of some co-accused does not automatically entitle remaining accused to acquittal.
- Whether the acquittal of co-accused persons on the basis of benefit of doubt is a valid ground for the acquittal of remaining convicted co-accused?
- Can common intention develop spontaneously during the course of an occurrence when the accused enter a premises?
- Does minor discrepancy between ocular account and medical evidence regarding the number of blows render the eye-witness testimony unreliable?
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 14-5-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioners against their conviction and sentences for offences under sections 304, 452 and 323 read with 34, P. P. C. Was partly allowed and the main offence having been converted into the one under section 325, P. P. C., the sentences were also accordingly reduced.
2. Learned counsel has narrated the case that seven persons, namely, the three petitioners and Ashiq Hussain, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Sadiq were originally tried for the murder of Barkat Ali and for having caused injuries to Mst. Hussain Bibi and Shabbir Hussain P. Ws.
3. At the trial, the said two eye-witnesses as also Mahmood Shah and Muhammad Rashid P. Ws.
4. Furnished the ocular account of the occurrence which consisted of two parts. One at the village daira where Barkat Ali deceased suffered a slab by Muhammad Din petitioner and a Moongli blow on the forehead by Muhammad Sharif petitioner. The parties were separated. Barkat Ali went away.
5. To his house, at few paces from the daira, where his wife Mst. Hussain Bibi P. W. Started abusing the accused party. Barkat Ali was preparing to leave for the Police Station so as to lodge a report of the incident when all the seven accused raided his house and started beating Barkat Ali, Mst. Hussain Bibi and Shabbir Hussain. The three petitioners are said to have given kick and fist blows to Barkat Ali deceased, who, amongst others, suffered a fracture of a rib and later on died on account of shock. The motive for the attack on Barkat Ali was not a serious one. Marriage of a daughter of Barkat Ali deceased had taken place some time before the occurrence. He had invited the accused party to attend the marriage. They despite the invitation, bad failed to do so. This led to an estrangement between the parties. The complainant party started blaming the accused party that they had been receiving marriage contribution (Neondra) on the marriages of their children and had shamefully failed to attend a marriage in Barkat Ali's house so as to save Neondra. This led to a village Panchayat at the Dera, where the parties altercated and then the accused party assaulted Barkat Ali.
6. The plea of the accused was of denial and false implication due to enmity. Muhammad Din petitioner had also pleaded alibi, for which evidence was led in defence. The learned trial Court accepted the ocular and motive testimony, gave the benefit of doubt to four accused and finding the three petitioners guilty convicted them, as noted above. The learned Single Judge in the High Court, after carefully examining the evidence, affirmed the finding of guilt, but thought that the case did not fall under section 304, P. P. C. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed by converting the conviction and sentences under section 304/34, P. P. C. To those under section 325/34, P. P. C.
7. Learned counsel has contended that there was no element in the prose--cution case so as to establish common intention' between the three petitioners when they entered the house of Barkat Ali, nor could it be said that the same developed during the occurrence-in fact-according to him, there was not even same or similar intention; that the medical evidence did not support the ocular account because the doctor found only three injuries including the kick and fist blows whereas the eye-witnesses had asserted that numerous kick blows were given to the deceased; that four accused were acquitted and there was no justification for convicting the petitioners on the basis of the same evidence; and that the injury which caused the death of Barkat Ali was only incidental.
8. After hearing the learned counsel we do not agree in the circumstance as contained in the detailed ocular account given by the eye-witnesses includ--ing the injured witnesses and keeping in view the motive as also the first incident, that the petitioners when entered the house of Barkat Ali with view to commit offence, bad no intention of causing grievous injuries to A any of the inmates of the house. Their subsequent conduct, as elaborated in the ocular account, shows that even if they had no such intention earlier, it certainly developed after they had entered the house.
9. The; first contention of the learned counsel has no force. Four accused were acquitted by the learned g trial Court by extension of benefit of doubt. That by itself is no ground for acquitting the petitioners as well. The present petitioners, it is stated by the eye-witnesses, had, in a separate group, attacked and injured Barkat Ali C deceased. The other arguments of the learned counsel relate to appreciation of evidence, which has properly been done by the learned Courts below.
10. No law or principle has been contravened. We do not find any justification for interference.
11. This petition accordingly is dismissed.