SAI KHAN. vs UMAR HAYAT AND 3 Other
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court, whereby the respondents' murder convictions under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code were altered to section 304-I/34, and one respondent was completely acquitted. The core legal question involved the assessment of culpability and the existence of a sudden fight in a criminal altercation where injuries were sustained by both parties and the prosecution allegedly suppressed material facts regarding the origin of the fight. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence, noting that the prosecution suppressed the arming of the deceased party with sharp weapons, rendering the origin of the fight mysterious and pointing towards a sudden fight. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution suppresses the genesis of a fight and injuries are sustained by both sides, the likelihood of a sudden fight warrants altering convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when injuries on the accused indicated a sudden fight whose origin was suppressed by the prosecution?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal or alteration of sentence by the High Court based on concurrent appreciation of evidence regarding suppressed facts?
- Does the presence of injuries on the accused persons in a murder trial support the likelihood of a sudden fight?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The respondents were tried and con--victed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, for the murder of one Abbas Khan, and while one of them was sentenced to death, the other two were sentenced to transportation For life etch. All the respondents were also convicted and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment each for an attempt of murder of P. W.
2. Ghulam Muhammad.
3. On appeal and reference the High Court acquitted respondent No. 3 Gulistan Khan of all the charges, and altered the conviction of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from one under section 302/34, to one under section 304-1/34, of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charge under section 307/34 of the Code.
4. The occurrence took place at 5-30 p. m. And it was witnessed by at least three persons, one of whom vii. P. W. 4 Ghulam Muhammad was himself injured in the occurrence. (an arrest both the respondents Umar Hayat and Muhammad Din led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchets with which according to the prosecution the murder was committed. The medical evidence while supporting the prosecution case also supports the fact that two of the respondents vii. Umar Hayat and Muhammad Din were also injured at the occurrence. Muhammad Din had four incised injuries including the removal of flap of his left ear besides several contusions, and Umar Hayat had one incised injury and four contusions and one abrasion. The evidence disclosed that respondent Gulistan although he beat P. W. Ghulam Muhammad, took no part in the attack on Abbas Khan deceased. The injuries on P. W. Ghulam Muhammad do not show that respondent Gulistan had any intention to kill him. The conviction of this respondent was accordingly set aside by the High Court and we see no reason to interfere with it. As regards the other two respondents the High Court found that the prosecution deliberately suppressed the fact that at least two members of the party of the deceased had also been armed with sharp weapons as the injuries on the respondents indicated. I he High Court, therefore, observed that the origin of the fight between the parties was shrouded in mystery. The prosecution did not say under what circumstances the deceased party were obliged to use sharp weapons. Both the respondents admit their participation in the fight and blood-stained hatchets were recovered at" their instance.
5. In these circumstances the likelihood of a sudden fight could not be excluded, and this was what in effect was observed by the High Court.
6. We do not think this is a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL HAMID And Others vs THE STATE- 1986 P Cr. L J 2351