SADIQ and 2 others BAKHSHA vs THE STATE SADIQ and others
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the conviction of three appellants for the killing of a deceased and causing injuries to prosecution witnesses during an altercation. The trial court, having determined the incident was a 'free fight' where both parties were prepared for conflict, convicted the appellants under Section 304, Part II and Section 324, read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without apportioning specific culpability. The High Court upheld these convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that both sides sustained multiple injuries, including grievous ones, and there was no specific attribution of the fatal blow or specific injuries to any individual appellant. The Court held that in a 'free fight' scenario where individual roles cannot be determined, the rule of vicarious liability under Section 34 cannot be invoked to sustain convictions. Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside their convictions, and acquitted them. A separate petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed for non-prosecution.
- Can the rule of vicarious liability be invoked in a case of a free fight where individual roles are not established?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the court fails to apportion specific culpability among accused persons in a free fight?
- Does the absence of specific attribution for fatal injuries entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt in a free fight scenario?
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--In terms of the leave granting order we have examined the record of the case.
2. ' The trial Court held that both the parties had prepared themselves for a fight and have fought in which case it was a free fight. Nonetheless, without apportioning their culpability in the killing of the deceased and of causing injuries to Ghulam Sarwar (P.W.4) and Shera (P.W.5), the trial Court convicted Sadiq, Wasawa and Ratallun under section 304, Part II read with section 34, P.P.C. And section 324 read with section 34, P.P.C. The High Court on appeal upheld the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court.
3. ' It may here be mentioned that the deceased suffered one incised injury of considerable dimension while Ghulam Sarwar had six injuries which were caused by blunt and sharp weapons out of which only one injury was grievous. Similarly Sher suffered three injuries with a blunt weapon of which one was grievous. On the side of the appellants Wasawa suffered 10 injuries both with sharp as well as blunt weapons; one injury out of those suffered by him was grievous and Ratallun suffered nine injuries out of which one was grievous.
4. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to ascribe any blame to either of the appellants for causing the fatal blow on the deceased or of causing simple and grievous injuries to the prosecution witnesses in the absence of any specific attribution as to the role played by each. As the rule of vicarious liability cannot be invoked in such a case, we would give benefit of doubt to the appellants in Criminal Appeal No, 186 of 1978 and acquit the appellants. They are on bail and their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
5. ' No one appeared to prosecute Criminal Appeal No, 187 of 1978 in which it was prayed for the enhancement of the sentence. Accordingly, we would recall the order granting leave and dismiss the petition.
Cited by 1 case
- Syed Farman Ali Shah vs Mian Syed Wahab Bacha and another 2023 PHC 554, 2024 MLD 1055