KALA And Others vs The STATE
This criminal appeal arose from a High Court judgment concerning charges of culpable homicide, attempted murder, hurt, and rioting. The High Court had convicted the appellants under Section 304, Part I, and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, applying Section 34 rather than Section 149, while setting aside the conviction for rioting under Section 148. Leave to appeal was granted solely to examine the severity of the sentence, with the appellants contending that life imprisonment under Section 304, Part I, was excessively harsh given the absence of a conviction under Section 302. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' conduct, the lethal weapons employed, and the extreme cruelty demonstrated during the unprovoked attack fully justified the sentence imposed. The Court further noted that it would not examine whether the offence should have been categorized under Section 302, as the complainant party had not filed an appeal regarding the conviction. The judgment affirms that the nature of the act and the manner of commission are critical factors in maintaining sentences for culpable homicide.
- Is a sentence of life imprisonment under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justified where the accused acted with extreme cruelty and lethal weapons?
- Can the Supreme Court re-examine whether an offence should have been charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the complainant party has not filed an appeal against the conviction under Section 304, Part I?
- Does the presence of insignificant injuries on the accused side compared to the complainant side negate a plea of self-defense?
- Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 16-4-1979; whereby in a case of culpable homicide, attempt to commit murder, simple hurt and rioting, the High Court maintained the sentence of imprisonment for life under section 304, Part I and other sentences under sections 307, 323 and 324, P.P.C. By application of section 34, P.P.C. Instead of application of section 149, P.P.C. The conviction and sentence for rioting under section 148, P.P.C., were, however, set aside. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the question of severity of sentence only.
3. The case of the prosecution was that at about 2 p.m. On 31st of October, 1972, Muhammad A.I complainant borrowed water for 2 hours from Naimat A.I for giving it to Bashir who was earlier deprived of his turn of water by Kala appellant. This was not liked by Kala who along with Siddiq, Sharif, Ghulam Muhammad, the brother-in-law of Muhammad A.I, and Baja, armed with lethal weapons such as Takwas, Barchhi and sticks attacked Muhammad A.I, his son Sardar A.I, his wife Mst. Nur Bibi, Baig and Bashir, on the Lalkara given by Ghulam Muhammad, Sardar A.I deceased received Takwa and Barchhi blows upon which he fell down. Mst. Nur Bibi fell on him and received a Takwa blow on her shoulder while trying to save her son. Muhammad A.I also received injuries on his head Ghulam Muhammad gave a stick blow on his back and as Sharif wanted to cause a spear blow, he snatched it from him. Baig also received injuries while attempting to rescue Muhammad A.I. The incident was witnessed by Bashir and Nur but they were abandoned at the trial. In the attack, appellants, Kala, Baja and Sharif also received injuries.
4. The defence plea that the complainant-side were the aggressors and that is why the accused- party suffered some injuries, was rejected and the appellants were found to be aggressors. At the time of granting leave to appeal, it was found, on merits, that "the High Court has, upon appraisal of the evidence, reached the conclusion that the petitioners were responsible for causing the injuries to the deceased and the other injured P.Ws. Their involvement was further corroborated by the recoveries of the incriminating articles and the presence of the injuries on their persons. I agree with this assessm ent of the High Court ".
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the conviction not having been recorded under section 302, P.P.C. The sentence of life imprisonment under section 304, Part I, is on the harsher side.
6. We do not agree with him. The conduct of the appellants, weapons used by them and the manner in which they dealt with the victims including the deceased is clear from the following narrative given in the High Court judgment: "He (Kala) and appellant Siddique armed with Takwas, appellant Sharif armed with Barchhi, their father appellant Ghulam Muhammad and their uncle Baja armed with sticks came to the spot.
7. Complainant Muhammad A.I, his son Sardar A.I deceased Baig P.W. And his wife Mst. Noor Bibi were present with Bashir son of Boota. Appellant Ghulam Muhammad shouted that the complainant- party should be taught lesson for irrigating the fields. At this appellant Muhammad Siddique gave a Takwa blow on the face, appellant Kala a Takwa blow on the right arm and appellant Sharif a Barchhi blow in the abdomen of the deceased, He fell down. When he was lying prone, appellant Ghulam Muhammad gave a stick blow on the right hand and appellant Kala another Takwa blow on the left buttock. Mst. Noor Bibi P.W. Mother of the deceased fell over her son. Appellant Siddique gave her Takwa blow on the left shoulder. Muhammad A.I complainant then stepped forward but was dealt with by appellants Siddique and Kala, who gave him a Takwa blow each on the head.
8. Appellant Ghulam Muhammad gave a stick blow on the back of Muhammad A.I. Sharif wanted to give him a spear blow but he (Muhammad A.I P.W.) attempted to snatch the same and thus his right palm and right little finger were injured. Baig P.W. Came to the rescue of Muhammad A.I P.W.
9. But he too was not spared. Appellant Sharif gave him a spear blow on the left thigh and Baja gave him a stick blow on the head."
10. The numerous injuries suffered by the complainant-side as compared to insignificant marks of injuries found on the side of the accused show high-handedness and cruelty with which the appellants dealt with their adversaries who, it has been found as a fact, were taken by surprise by the appellants.
11. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not consider any justification for reduction of the sentence. As to whether the main offence in the circumstances of this case would not fall under section 302, P.P.C. Does not need any further examination by this Court because the complainant- side has not filed an appeal, in this behalf.
12. With the foregoing observations, this appeal is dismissed.