AHMAD BAKHSH and others vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. One petitioner, Ahmad Bakhsh, passed away during the pendency of the proceedings, resulting in the abatement of the petition regarding him. For the remaining petitioners, the core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in its summary rejection of the plea of self-defence. The petitioners contended that the High Court failed to provide specific, cogent reasons for rejecting their defence version, merely observing that the story did not ring true. The Supreme Court found that this contention required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to specifically consider whether the plea of self-defence was properly considered and appreciated by the High Court, establishing that a defence version cannot be rejected summarily without adequate reasoning.
- Does the death of a petitioner during the pendency of a petition for leave to appeal result in the abatement of the petition qua that petitioner?
- Can a plea of self-defence be rejected summarily by an appellate court without providing specific and cogent reasons?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Ahmad Bakhsh, Nazeer Ahmad and Muhammad Ali have filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 4-2- 1987 whereby their appeal against their conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. ' Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that Ahmad Bakhsh died somewhere in May, 1988. So this petition qua him stands abated.
3. With regard to the remaining two, it was argued that the defence had taken the plea of self- defence which was neither considered nor properly appreciated by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court who rejected the aforesaid plea summarily by observing, "The story of self- defence narrated by them does not ring true".
4. ' Learned counsel contended that without giving specific cogent reasons, the defence version could not be rejected in such like manner.
5. ' The contention needs examination. Leave is accordingly granted to consider the plea of self- defence.