MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM
The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had altered the respondent's conviction from section 302, Pakistan Penal Code to section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code, and reduced his sentence of imprisonment for life to ten years rigorous imprisonment based on a plea of self-defence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of evidence and in accepting the defence version under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided cogent reasons for believing the defence version and was fully justified in altering the conviction. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, establishing that appellate courts may rely on a substantiated plea of self-defence and the statement of the accused to reduce a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder where supported by evidence.
- Whether the High Court was justified in altering a conviction from section 302 to section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code based on a plea of self-defence?
- Can an appellate court rely on the statement of the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to accept a defence version?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.- -Muhammad Aslam respondent was tried for the murder of Ijaz. He was convicted by the learned trial Court under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs.6,000. On appeal the High Court altered his conviction to one under section 304-I, P.P.C. and reduced his sentence from imprisonment for life to 10 years R.I. vide its judgment dated 11-2-1985.
Feeling aggrieved Muhammad Riaz petitioner has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the aforementioned judgment of the High Court.
2. On going through the impugned judgment we find that the learned High Court altered the conviction of the respondent in view of the plea of self-defence taken by him which was accepted as correct.
Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned High Court had wrongly appraised the evidence relating to the defence version and had erred in relying on the statement of the accused respondent under section 342, Cr.P.C.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment in the light of the aforementioned contentions and are unable to agree with the petitioner's counsel. The High Court has given cogent reasons for believing the defence version and was justified in altering the respondent's conviction from section 302, P.P.C. to one under section 304-I, P.P.C.
Leave is therefore, refused.
M.I./M-285/S Petition dismissed.