ABDUL MAJID Versus NAWAB DIN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's criminal revision against the respondent's conviction under section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code instead of section 302, Pakistan Penal Code in a murder case. The core legal question is whether the trial court and High Court erred in convicting the respondent under section 304, Part II rather than section 302, Pakistan Penal Code given the circumstances of the solitary injury and lack of premeditation. The Supreme Court held that although technical errors might exist, the appeal would not ultimately succeed on substance, as re-examination of evidence could at most alter the conviction to section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code without changing the practical outcome. The court laid down the principle that leave to appeal will be refused where a re-appraisal of evidence is unlikely to alter the substantial outcome or remedy a miscarriage of justice.
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted where re-examination of evidence would not alter the substantial outcome of the case?
- Does a solitary injury inflicted without premeditation warrant a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- When can a conviction under section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained in place of a murder charge?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. --Leave to appeal has been sought from Order dated 3-10-1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Criminal Revision against Nawab Din respondent, calling in question the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in a case of murder, was dismissed. Instead of convicting the said respondent under section 302, P.P.C., he convicted him only under section 304, Part II, P.P. C.
2. The learned trial Judge, after consideration of the evidence, came to the following conclusion:-
2. "It is in evidence that there was no previous enmity between the parties. The deceased and the accused are brother-in-law inter se. The accused was feeling sore against the deceased due to dispute over the marriage of his daughter Mst.Sabiha. It appears that on seeing the deceased in front of his house he felt annoyed and provoked and gave him a solitary injury with chhuri. He did not repeat the blow though there was nothing to restrain him from doing so. It means that he had no intention to cause the death of the deceased but had the knowledge that the injury was likely to cause his death."
3. 3, After hearing the learned counsel we agree with him that technically it is possible to grant leave to appeal which might result in correction of some technical errors committed by the learned trial Court. But, after examining the merits of the case, we feel that the appeal would not ultimately succeed in so far as the substance of the case is concerned. The re-examination of the evidence might result only in the change of provision from section 304, Part II to section 304 Part I , P .P. C . with the award of same sentence and the grant 304, Part II of some benefit under section 382-B to the accused/ respondent; as has been upheld by the High Court. This, therefore, is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal: which is accordingly refused.
4. M.I.IA-1671S Petition dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Asadullah and Sajjad Ali vs The State 2024 SHC 188