MUHAMMAD IDREES vs TANVEER alias TERU and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that convicted the respondents under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, rather than under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as requested by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence regarding the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused, which led the court to conclude that the incident was an unpremeditated chance encounter rather than a premeditated murder. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, noting that the inference drawn by the High Court—that the injuries received by the respondents occurred during the same incident and were suppressed by the prosecution—was a reasonable and possible conclusion based on the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the conviction or enhance the sentence, holding that the High Court's assessment of the facts and the resulting application of Section 304, Part I, P.P.C. was justified in the circumstances. The petition was dismissed.
- Can a court infer that an incident was an unpremeditated chance encounter when the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused?
- Is the Supreme Court justified in refusing to interfere with a High Court's factual finding regarding the nature of an occurrence when that finding is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The High Court vide order and judgment dated 15-12-1984 has found the respondents guilty under section 304, Part I P.P.C. For the murder of Ehsan deceased and sentenced them to ten years' R.I. With a fine of Rs, 5,000 each or in default to undergo R.I. For six months. The fine, if realised, shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of Ehsan deceased. By this petition the legality and propriety of the conviction awarded and the sentence imposed is challenged. According to the petitioner both the respondents were liable to conviction under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced accordingly. Hence this petition.
2. ' The reasons for the learned High Court to convict the respondents under section 304, Part I, P.P.C.
3. Have been stated thus:-- "However, the argument of the learned counsel for Tanweer appellant that suppression of injuries of Tanweer and Khalid by the prosecution was not given due consideration by the trial Court is, of course, not without force. The following injuries were found on the person of Tanweer appellant:-
(1) Incised wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep at right wrist joint.
(2) Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm at left hand.
4. ' Likewise, the following three simple injuries were found on the person of Khalid accused:
(1) Abrasion 1/4 cm at the left side of face.
(2) Abrasion 1/4 cm at left upper eye-brow.
(3) Abrasion 1 cm x 1/4 cm in between thumb and index finger of the right hand.
5. ' In view of the existence of bad blood between the parties ignited by the incident taking place day prior to the occurrence and the un-explained injuries on the persons of the accused particularly Khalid who had suffered injuries on the face, left upper eye-brow and the hand, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the prosecution has not come forward with the true story and has suppressed material facts. In such circumstances, the Court is competent to form its own view as to the anner in which the occurrence had taken place.
6. ' From the circumstances of the case, all probability it appears that there was a chance encounter between the accused and the complainant party, leading to a physical quarrel resulting in injuries to both sides. Tanweer and Khalid did participate in the occurrence and not only caused injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons but also suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant party."
7. ' The conclusion was expressed as follows:-- "As in our view it was an unpremeditated incident the offence would more appropriately fall under section 304, Part I, P.P.C."
8. ' Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the view of the High Court that the accused-respondents had also received injuries during the course of the incident which were suppressed by the P.Ws. Was not correct and, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the High Court that the encounter between the parties had occurred per chance which led to a physical quarrel resulting in injuries to both sides, is not justified.
9. We have considered this argument and find that the inference drawn by the learned Judges in the High Court that the injuries received by the respondents were caused during the same occurrence in which Muhammad Ehsan deceased lost his life is a possible one. In these circumstances, we do not think that this is a fit case for interfering with the judgment of the High Court and altering the conviction or enhancing the sentence imposed by the High Court.
10. ' Dismissed.