BILAL HUSSAIN vs The STATE
This matter concerns two criminal petitions filed by the petitioner, Bilal Hussain, challenging his convictions for attempted murder and illegal possession of a weapon. The petitioner was initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempted murder and under the Arms Ordinance for possession of a knife, with sentences of three years and one year of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The High Court dismissed his appeals against both convictions. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his actions constituted an offence under Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 307. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, noting that the nature of the weapon and the location of the injury (the abdomen) justified the conviction under Section 307. Furthermore, the Court held that even if the offence were reclassified under Section 326, the sentence imposed was well within the permissible limits for that section, rendering the distinction practically immaterial to the petitioner's sentence. The petitions were dismissed.
- Does the use of a knife to inflict an abdominal injury justify a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does a reclassification of an offence from Section 307 to Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 necessitate a reduction in sentence if the original sentence is within the statutory limits of the latter?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Arms Ordinance
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J-This order will dispose of Criminal Petitions No. 486/81 and No. 487/81, both filed by Bilal Hussain petitioner. He was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who convicted him under sec--tion 307, P. P. C., for which he was sentenced to 3 years' R. I. And a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to undergo further R. I. For six months. He filed an appeal against the judgment which was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned order. He was also tried and convicted under the Arms Ordinance for possession of the knife with which he had committed the above-noted offence, and was sentenced to one year's R. I. His second appeal against his conviction under the Arms Ordinance before the High Court, too, met the same fate.
Hence the two petitions.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only contention raised by him was that the offence made out against the petitioner does not fall within the purview of section 307, P. r. C.
But under section 326, P. P. C.
3. In the first place, considering the nature of the weapon used and the location of the injury (i. e.
Abdomen), the Courts below were justified in holding that he had committed the offence under section 307, P. P. C. Secondly, even an offence under section 326, P. P. C.Punishable with imprisonment for life or a term which may extend to 10 yearsR. I. Having been sentenced only to 3 years' R. I. It would not make any practical difference to the petitioner even if he had been found guilty under section 326, P. P. C., Criminal Petition No. 486/81 is, therefore, dismissed.
4. As to Criminal Petition No. 487/81, we find that the recovery of the knife, which is the crime weapon, has been duly proved and the petitioner was rightly convicted for its possession under
Cited by 1 case
- Muhammad Hamayun Versus Shamsullah 2026 PCrLJ 393