GHULAM HUSSAIN vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, Ghulam Hussain, was tried alongside two co-accused for attacking two individuals with dangs (lathis), resulting in multiple injuries. While the trial court convicted all three accused, the High Court subsequently acquitted the co-accused while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not contest the occurrence of the incident or the prosecution evidence but argued that the proved facts did not constitute an offence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court examined the motive behind the incident, the nature of the attack, and the specific number and location of the injuries inflicted. The Court held that, given the circumstances, the offence was correctly categorized under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the use of lathis in this context constituted lethal weapons sufficient to sustain the conviction for attempted murder.
- Does the use of lathis in an attack constitute the use of lethal weapons for the purpose of a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained based on the nature and location of injuries inflicted during an assault?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J -Ghulam Hussain petitioner was tried along--with Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Akram, for an offence under section 307; P. P. C. By a section 30 Magistrate. The allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused was that they attacked at Muhammad Boota (P. W. 1) and Muhammad Siddiq (P. W. 2) with dangs causing two injuries to Muhammad Boota and six injuries to Siddiq aforesaid.
2. The learned trial Court convicted all of them under section 3(17/34, P. P. C. Arid sentenced to 5 years' R. I. Plus fine of Rs. 1,000 each or further one year's R. I.- in default of payment of fine.
Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Akram challenged their conviction in appeal before the High Court while Ghulam Hussain petitioner also filed a separate appeal before it. The learned High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 9-2-1982, accepted the appeal of Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Akram, while it maintained the conviction and sentence of Ghulam Hussain.
Hence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute either the occurrence or challenge the evidence led in support of the prosecution version, but only urged that on the facts proved on the record the offence in question is not covered by section 307/34, P. P. C.
4. Having considered the motive for the incident and the nature of the attack as well as number and location of the injuries caused by lathis, which have been held in numerous cases to be lathal weapons, we feel that in the circumstances of this case, the offence is covered by section 307, P. P.
C.
5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any merit.
Cited by 1 case
- RASHID MEHMOOD and anothers vs THE STATE 2000 YLR 1743