MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN vs NAUKAR HUSSAIN and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the respondent, Naukar Hussain, under Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Mohammad Anwar, while maintaining the acquittal of his co-accused, Mohammad Hussain. The trial court had sentenced the respondent to five years of rigorous imprisonment, a fine, and compensation. The petitioner, the complainant, sought an enhancement of the sentence to a capital punishment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their sentencing and conviction assessment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's judgment was legally sound. The Court affirmed that the occurrence happened at the spur of the moment without premeditation, and the respondent did not take undue advantage of the situation, thereby justifying the conviction under Section 304, Part II rather than Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
- Does a conviction under Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 remain valid when the occurrence is found to have happened at the spur of the moment without premeditation?
- Can a sentence be enhanced to capital punishment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the accused did not take undue advantage of the situation during the occurrence?
- Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Respondent Naukar Hussain and his brother Mohammad Hussain were tried by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, for the murder of Mohammad Anwar. The trial Judge, by judgment dated 11-11-1986, convicted Naukar Hussain under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. And sentenced him to five years R.I. And fine of Rs,2,000 or in default six months R.I. He was further ordered to pay Rs,10,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of its payment R.I. For six months. Benefit of section 382, Cr.P.C. Was also given to him.
2. ' Muhammad Hussain was acquitted.
3. ' Naukar Hussain filed appeal against the judgment of the trial Court whereas the complainant (Muzaffar Hussain) filed revision for enhancement of sentence of Naukar Hussain and against the acquittal of Muhammad Hussain. The High Court by means of the impugned Judgment dismissed both the matters. Muzaffar Hussain seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment.
4. ' Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that the conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was not in accordance with law. It was not a case where Naukar Hussain respondent should have been convicted under section 304, Part II, P.P.C.
5. According to the learned counsel, he deserved capital sentence under section 302, P.P.C.
6. We have considered this submission in the light of the observations made by the High Court, we do not find any force in it. The High Court after considering all the relevant facts held that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment without any premeditation; nor did the respondent take any undue advantage of the situation. Hence his conviction was in accordance with law. The judgment of the High Court suffers from no legal infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- WAQAR vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 323