GULZAR and another vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their convictions for murder. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner Gulzar acted in self-defence and whether the actions of the accused warranted a conviction under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than for murder. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence was unsubstantiated, noting the deceased was unarmed and the accused sustained no injuries. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the offence fell under Section 304, as the medical evidence confirmed a fatal injury caused by a heavy sharp-edged weapon to the head, coupled with multiple other injuries, demonstrating the accused's intent and knowledge of the consequences. The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, noting that the ocular evidence was corroborated by medical reports and the dying declaration/report lodged by the deceased. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the Court found no grounds for re-appraisal of evidence or interference with the sentences.
- Can a plea of private self-defence be sustained where the accused suffered no injuries and the deceased was unarmed?
- Does causing a fatal head injury with a heavy sharp-edged weapon, accompanied by multiple other injuries, exclude the application of Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-appraise evidence in a criminal petition where the lower courts have concurrently relied on consistent ocular and medical evidence?
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 30-10-1989 by which the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, arc that on 14-11-1986, at about 8 a.m. The deceased Muhammad Nazir son of Haji Ahmad, was cutting lawn' from his field when both the petitioners came there. Gulzar was armed with a hatchet and Liaquat was armed with a Sota. Abuses were exchanged between the accused and the deceased. After that, Gulzar inflicted a hatchet blow on the head of the deceased.
The accused Gulzar also caused more injuries to the deceased with the wrong side of the hatchet and the accused Liaquat gave Sota blows on different parts of the body of the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by Nur Elahi, Mst. Janat Bibi and Mst. Nasim Begum (not produced). The report of the incident was lodged by the deceased himself. After usual investigation, the accused were sent up to face the trial. The trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced Gulzar to death and line of Rs,6,000, in default thereof to suffer R.I. For one year. Liaquat was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,6,000, in default thereof to suffer R.I. For one year. Both the accused were directed to pay Rs,10,000 as compensation each to the heirs of the deceased. The learned High Court reduced the sentence of Gulzar to imprisonment for life and reduced the fine of Rs, 6,001) to Rs,3,000 each. The compensation amount of Rs,10,000 was also reduced to Rs,1,000.
With this modification, the appeal was dismissed and the sentence of death was not confirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner Liaquat was not present at the time of the incident and petitioner Gulzar has caused the injury in self-defence. Gulzar, accused, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has stated that:-- ' he deceased was armed with a sickle and he attacked me. Feeling danger to my life I caused injuries to the deceased with a "Sangha" in exercise of my right of private self-defence."
4. The plea of the accused was not accepted by the two Courts for sound reasons. The admitted position on record is that the deceased was unarmed. The accused Gulzar had not received any injury. There are 10 injuries on the person of the deceased. Injury No, 1 was caused with a heavy sharp-edged weapon and the rest were caused with a blunt weapon. There is not a single instance from which it can be adduced that the petitioner Gulzar had caused the injuries to the 'A deceased in self-defence. His presence at the time of Wardat is admitted by the accused himself.
5. The learned counsel next contended that no injury was caused on the vital part of the body therefore, the case falls under section 304 P.P.C. The contention has no force. Injury No, 1 caused the bone fracture on back right side of head occipital region. The accused had caused the blow with a heavy sharp-edged weapon, therefore, he had the knowledge as to what would be the effect of his attack. Additionally, there were 10 injuries on the person of the deceased and the accused in concert caused such injuries. Therefore, this plea has also no force. The two eye-witnesses Mst.
Jannat Bibi and Nur Elahi have fully corroborated the prosecution case. The deceased had himself lodged the report of the incident accusing the two accused that they had caused injuries to him.
The medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular evidence. There was no mitigating circumstance. The death sentence of Gulzar has already been reduced by the High Court. This is not a fit case for re-appraisal of evidence. The presence of Liaquat and causing injuries to deceased are borne out from record.
6. The petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- MEHDI and another vs THE STATE and anothers 2005 P C R L J 1689
- MEHDI Versus State 2005 PCrLJ 1689