MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Bakhsh against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld his conviction and sentence for culpable homicide. The petitioner, along with co-accused, was originally tried for murder and attempted murder. While the trial court acquitted one co-accused and convicted the others, the petitioner remained the sole appellant before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions addressed were whether the petitioner's plea of self-defence was substantiated and whether his conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code was legally sound or should have been reduced to Section 325. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the plea of self-defence, and the prosecution's case was proven. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the conviction should be altered to Section 325, finding no evidentiary basis for such a reduction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the conviction was in accordance with the law.
- Whether a plea of self-defence can be accepted when it is not substantiated by evidence or the prosecution's case?
- Is a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code sustainable when the defence fails to prove circumstances warranting a reduction to Section 325?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a plea of self-defence when the prosecution case is proven to the hilt?
- Section 304 Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Muhammad Bakhsh son of Rahim Bakhsh, resident of Mauza Khanpur District Dera Ghazi Khan seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 11-2-1989 whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed and his conviction and sentence upheld.
2. ' Rahim Bakhsh along with his two sons Muhammad Bakhsh and Mazar and one Ismail were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, for the murder of Muhammad Shafi and attempt to murder Yar Muhammad and Ghulam Hassan P.Ws.
3. ' The occurrence in which the petitioner and co-accused were involved is alleged to have taken place on 15-7-1974 at 10/11 p.m. In the area of Chah Laluwala-cum-Khanpur which falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kot Chhutta.
4. ' The trial Judge, by judgment dated 18-11-1976, acquitted Ismail and convicted the father and his two sons as follows:-
(1) Rahim Bakhsh under section 323, P.P.C., sentenced to 3
(2) Mazar months' R.I. Each, under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Fine Rs,100 as compensation to the injured person or in default one month R.I. Each.
(3) Muhammad Bakhsh) under section 304 Part H, P.P.C., sentenced to ten years' R.I. Under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Fine of Rs,1,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, or in default six months' R.I.
5. ' The convicts appealed to the Lahore High Court. Muhammad Bakhsh's appeal was dismissed and as Mazar and Rahim Bakhsh had already served out their sentence the High Court observed that there was no need to apprehend them.
6. ' Muhammad Bakhsh is before us now. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition.
7. ' The petitioner had taken the plea of self-defence before the trial Court and the same was pressed into service before the appellate Court as well as before us.
8. The plea was thoroughly discussed by the High Court. Learned counsel, in the first instance, argued for the acquittal of the petitioner but having realized that he had no chance to succeed, the prosecution case having been proved to the hilt, the defence version having not been established he took up an alternative plea that conviction under section 304 Part II, P.P.C. Was not in accordance with law. According to him the case falls within the purview of section 325, P.P.C.
9. ' The contention has no force because of the reasons given by the High Court and we have also independently examined the same. The plea has not been substantiated by any evidence nor the same can he spelt out from the prosecution evidence.
10. ' Dismissed.