HUMAYUN And Others vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the convictions of the petitioners for murder and causing injuries under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the plea of self-defence is available to an accused party in a situation characterized as a free fight. The trial court and the High Court had concurrently found that the incident involved a free fight between the parties over the possession of government-owned land, during which both sides sustained injuries. The Supreme Court declined to re-appraise the evidence regarding the free fight, finding the lower courts' findings based on cogent evidence. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the plea of self-defence is not available to either party in a case of a free fight. This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that when an incident is determined to be a free fight, the right of private defence cannot be invoked by the participants.
- Is the plea of self-defence available to an accused in a case of a free fight?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of an incident as a free fight?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 6-7-1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby the petitioner's appeal arising out of murder of one Khan and injuries to several P.Ws., Humayun petitioner's conviction under section 302, P.P.C. And the conviction under section 307, P:P.C. Of the other two petitioners were maintained. Various sentences including life imprisonment to Hamayun were also upheld.
2. The main features of the case as found by the learned trial Court are not disputed, therefore, it is not necessary to give details.
3. According to the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, the petitioners caused injuries to the deceased and P.Ws. In a free fight wherein the complainant-side also caused fairly serious injuries to the petitioners. The dispute was over the possession of a piece of Government owned land which both the parties wanted to keep in their Possession.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners without being able to assail the findings regarding free fight tried to make out a case of self-defence for the petitioners.
5. The finding of fact that there was free fight between the parties are based on cogent evidence for the re-appraisal of which we do not find any justification. Regarding the plea of self-defence it is now well-settled law that in a case of free fight this plea in not available to either of the parties.
6. Accordingly there is no force in this petition and the same, is dismissed.