MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others vs THE STATE
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partially accepted the petitioners' appeal by setting aside their convictions under Section 326/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining their convictions and sentences under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could be held vicariously liable for injuries sustained by the complainant party when other co-accused, who were also alleged to have played an effective role, were exonerated by the police during the investigation. The Supreme Court held that the exoneration of co-accused by the police does not automatically absolve the remaining accused of vicarious liability if the evidence supports the application of common intention. The Court affirmed that Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was fully attracted given the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, refused leave to appeal, and upheld the sentences imposed by the lower courts, deeming them appropriate.
- Can accused persons be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if co-accused charged with effective roles were exonerated by the police?
- Does the exoneration of co-accused by the police during the challan stage provide a legal benefit to the remaining accused regarding their liability for injuries caused?
- Is the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 dependent on the police's decision to include or exclude other suspects in the challan?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--Muhammad Rafiq, Sharif, Abdul Aziz and Manzoor, petitioners herein, assail the judgment dated 15-3-1993 passed by a learned. Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby their appeal against their conviction and sentence under sections 307/34, P.P.0 and 326/34, P.P.C, was partly accepted, their conviction and sentence under section 326/34, P.P.C. Was set aside and their conviction and sentence under section 307/34, P.P.0 maintained.
2. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Aslam Nagi, Advocate, for the petitioners, and have perused the record of the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that along with the petitioners other persons, namely, Siddique, Ahmad Hassan, Batt, Usman and Abdul Ghani had also been charged with effective role but they were placed in column No,2 of the challan by the police and declared innocent and that, since some of the grievous injuries had been attributed to those persons, the petitioners could not be held vicariously liable for those injuries.
4. We have considered the evidence brought on the record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and are of the view that the petitioners could not derive any benefit from the exoneration of their co-accused from the charge by the police. There are several injuries on the person of complainant party, both, grievous and simple, caused by sharp-edged weapons as well as by blunt means. Some of the injuries resulted in the cutting of bone through and through. Section 34, P.P.0 was fully attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case and all the petitioners were rightly held vicariously liable and sentenced accordingly. The sentence awarded by the trial Court and the High Court does not appear to be harsh and the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reduction in sentence cannot be acceded to.
' Resultantly, finding no merit on the instant petition, the same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.