SIKANDAR AKBAR ALI AND 2 Others vs THE STATE THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences imposed on the appellants for the murder of one Allah Ditta. The core legal question was whether the appellants' actions, which resulted in severe injuries, constituted murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the alleged absence of intent to kill. The appellants argued that the specific locale of the injuries indicated an intent to cause bodily harm rather than death. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the intention to kill was manifest from the use of deadly weapons with brutal force, which caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court affirmed that intention is judged by the nature of the act performed, and the infliction of multiple severe injuries causing rapid death demonstrated a clear intent to kill, regardless of the specific body parts targeted.
- Does the use of deadly weapons to inflict injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death establish the intention to kill?
- Can the intention of an accused be inferred from the nature of the act performed and the severity of the injuries inflicted?
- Does the fact that an accused chose not to strike vital areas like the head necessarily negate an intention to cause death?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-These appeals by special leave of the Court arise from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, passed in criminal jurisdiction on the 29th April 1969.
2. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the two sets of appellants herein and confirmed the sentences of death imposed on each of them by the Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, for the offence under section 302 read with section 34, P. P. C. For the murder of one Allah Ditta.
3. Leave to appeal was granted on the 17th October 1969, only to consider the nature of the offence committed by the appellants. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries found on the person of Allah Ditta, deceased, were caused by the appellants with the knowledge that they were likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death which alone would have brought the offence committed by them within the four corners of section 302, P.
4. P. C. In other words the appellants had been guilty of the offence defined in Part (ii) of section 304, P. P. C.
5. The following injuries were found on the person of the deceased
(1) Incised wound cutting lower part of the left forearm in a slanting way. The arm was hanging only by a tag of skin on the front part of forearm.
(2) Incised wound 1-- " x -- " x -- on the front of the lower part of the right forearm.
(3) Incised wound on back of upper part of left leg just below the knee, hanging only by a tag of skin on the front part.
(4) Incised wound on the left back part near the ankle cutting the leg which was hanging by a tag of skin.
(5) Incised wound on the right leg at lower part 3" x 1" x 2" bone was cut.
(6) Incised wound 3" x 1" x 1-- " on the back of the right foot cutting the bone.
6. Bones were found cut under injuries 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The large blood vessels were also cut. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The probable time which elapsed between causing injuries and death was few minutes. Cross-examination of Dr. Masood Farooqi, Medical Superintendent, Gojra, who had performed the post--mortem examination was confirmed to the following : "When a hand is described for medical purposes it is presumed to be in a position in which palms are to the front. The injury No. 1 had a tag of skin on the front outer part and as; such it can be deduced that the injury was received on the inner aspect of the arm."
7. In order to determine the intention of the appellants, let us first look to the weapons used by them.
8. Akbar Ali and Mohammad Ashraf had Drats; Abdul Ghani was armed with a sword and Sikander carried a hatchet. The force with which these deadly weapons were wielded is indicated by the nature of the resulting injuries. Lower part of left arm was cut through and through. The arm was hanging only by a tag of skin. Similarly, the left leg was cut through and through at two points: (i) below the knee it was hanging by a tag of skin on the front part; and (ii) near the ankle and hanging by a tag of skin. In similar manner the bones of the right leg and right foot were cut. These injuries leave no doubt that in causing them the appellants had used their weapons with brutal force.
9. The intention to kill the deceased was thus manifest, but Ch. Nazir Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the locale of the injuries indicated that the intention was to cause only bodily harm and not to kill otherwise the appellants could have easily chopped off the victim's head.
10. We are unable to subscribe to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The intention is judged by the nature of the act performed by a person. According to medical evidence the injuries inflicted on the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This was further fortified by the death of the deceased within a few minutes of receiving the injuries. One of the known methods of wreaking vengeance on the victim of an assault is to cause slow death. For ought we know the intention of the appellants was not only to kill the deceased, but to cause maximum pain to him by the time he expired.
11. The offence committed by the appellants thus fell squarely within the ambit of section 302, P. P. C.
12. And they have been rightly convicted under that provision of law. We also see noproper ground to interfere with the legal sentences imposed on the appellants by the trial Judge.
13. The appeal is dismissed.