MUNAWAR HUSSAIN Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the convictions and reduced the sentences of the respondents. The respondents' convictions were modified from Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304-I/34 and Section 324 of the same Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in accepting the respondents' defence version of the incident, which asserted the right of private defence of the person of a female relative who was allegedly being forcibly dragged by the deceased. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after reviewing the evidence and the impugned judgment, held that the High Court was fully justified in accepting the defence version. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming that the right of private defence of body was properly established under the circumstances.
- Whether the High Court is justified in altering a conviction from Section 302/34 to Section 304-I/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the plea of right of private defence of body is established?
- Can a plea of right of private defence of the person of another, specifically a female relative being forcibly dragged, justify the mitigation of an offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304-I/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Munawar Hussain petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-3-1982 whereby the conviction of Ghulam Rasool and Inayat respondent was altered from section 302/34, P.P.C. to one under section 304-1/34, P.P.C. and their sentences were reduced to 10 years R.I. each, while the conviction of Khushi Muhammad respondent was altered from section 302/ 34, P . P . C . to one under section-324, P.P.C. and his sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that already undergone by him.
2. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court had partially allowed the appeal of 3 respondents and made the above-noted alterations and modifications in their convictions and sentences because it believed the version of the incident put forward by the accused-respondents through Khushi Muhammad who pleaded the right of defence of the person of his wife who was being forcibly dragged by the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through relevant portions of the evidence on the record and the impugned judgment to urge that the aforementioned versions had been wrongly believed.
4. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we are not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and feel that the High Court was justified in accepting the said defence version. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition which is consequently dismissed.
M.I. /M-281/8 Petition dismissed.