MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ vs The STATE and others
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Muhammad Sarfraz, for causing an injury to the left eye of the victim, Zafar Iqbal, using an iron rod. The trial court and the High Court had previously upheld the conviction under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the facts of the case truly attracted the provisions of Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon reviewing the record, including the testimony of the medical officer, the medico-legal certificate, and expert opinions from a Medical Board and an Ophthalmologist, the Court found conclusive evidence of permanent partial loss of vision in the victim's eye. Consequently, the Court held that the injury fell within the scope of Section 335 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the lower courts' application of the law was correct. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that permanent impairment of vision justifies conviction under the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
- Does the permanent partial loss of vision caused by an injury attract the provisions of Section 335 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is medical evidence from an ophthalmologist and a medical board sufficient to establish the nature of an eye injury for the purposes of criminal liability?
- Section 335, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---For causing an injury on the left eye of one Zafar Iqbal with an iron rod the appellant namely Muhammad Sarfraz had inter alia been convicted by the trial court for an offence under section 336, P.P.C. And the said conviction and sentence had subsequently been upheld by the High Court. Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the provisions of section 336, P.P.C. Stood attracted to the allegation leveled against the appellant or not. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State we have gone through the record of the case with particular emphasis on the medical evidence available on the record and have found that through the statement of Dr. Muhammad Aslam (PW1), the Medico-legal Certificate issued by that doctor, the opinion rendered by a Medical Board as well as the opinion furnished by an Ophthalmologist it had been established that there was a partial loss of vision of the right eye of the victim namely Zafar Iqbal which partial loss of vision was to stay permanently and could not be cured even through a surgery. In view of availability of such medical evidence we have entertained no manner of doubt that the injury caused by the appellant to the victim did attract the provisions of section 335, P.P.C. And, thus, the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial court for an offence under section 335, P.P.C. Read with section 336, P.P.C. Were not open to any legitimate exception. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. Shabana Kausar vs The State 2024 SHC 410
- Rahim Shah vs The State & one another 2017 PHC 743
- RAHIM SAID Versus State 2018 YLRN 76