NAZIR AHMAD vs SARFRAZ And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against a High Court judgment that acquitted certain respondents and reduced the sentences of others in a murder and murderous assault case. The trial court had convicted the respondents under sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. On appeal, the High Court concluded the incident arose from a sudden fight, acquitted two respondents, and altered the convictions of the others to lesser offenses, significantly reducing their sentences. The complainant challenged these acquittals and sought enhancement of the sentences. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying that the primary legal questions requiring determination are whether the incident truly constituted a 'sudden fight' under the law and, if the incident does not fall within the scope of Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, whether the sentences imposed by the High Court warrant enhancement under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court permitted the parties to proceed on the existing record with leave to file additional documents.
- Whether an incident involving multiple injuries can be legally classified as a sudden fight under Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal and sentence reduction in a murder case?
- Does the evidence in a case of murderous assault justify the application of Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The six respondents namely Sarfraz, Murid Hussain, Salhoon, Ghulam Haider, Tajamul Hussain and Imtiaz Ahmad were tried for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf and murderous assault on Nazir Ahmad (P.W.9), Munawar Hussain (P.W.12) and Shah Muhammad (P.W.13). The trial Court convicted them as follows:- "Life imprisonment plus Rs.10,000 as fine or 3 years' R.I. In case of default of payment of fine plus compensation amounting to Rs.10,000 under section 544-A or in default 3 years' R.I. To each of the accused under section 302/149, P.P.C. 3 years' R.I. Plus Rs.5,000 as fine or in default of payment of fine 6 months' R.I. Plus compensation amounting to Rs.5,000 or in default of payment thereof 3 months' R.I. Under section 307/149, P.P.C. To each of the accused.
All the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. On appeal, however, the High Court held that the incident was the result of a sudden fight between the parties and that every accused was responsible for his own acts. After considering their cases separately in the light of the above observation and the fact that persons from both sides had sustained injuries, it acquitted Sarfraz and Murid Hussain respondents and altered the conviction of Salhoon and Ghulam Haider respondents to 323 and 324, P.P.C. Respectively and reduced their sentences to that already undergone by them. The conviction of Imtiaz respondent who was stated to have fired a shot at the belly of the deceased and killed him was converted from 302, P.P.C. To 304-I, P.P.C. His sentence was reduced from death to 10 years' R.I. He was also awarded a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further 1 year's R.I. He was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced to 7 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000 and six months' further R.I. In default thereof.
As for Tajamul Hussain respondent who was stated to have caused a fire-arm injury in the chest of Munawar Hussain P.W. Causing an exit wound at his back, was sentenced to 7 years' R.I. Under section 307, P.P.C. And a fine of Rs.2,000 (six months further R.I. In case of default).
3. Nazir Ahmad complainant (P.W.9) who was uncle of the deceased has filed the present petition against their acquittal and for the enhancement of their sentences.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent caveator and gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment with their help. We feel that this is a fit case where the question whether or not the incident was the result of a sudden fight, requires consideration. Moreover, it also needs to be considered that if the case is not found to be covered by Exception IV to section 300, P.P.C., whether it would then be a fit case for enhancement of sentences of the respondents under section 302, P.P.C.
Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose. To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.