MUSHTAQ AHMED and 4 others vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentences of the petitioners for the murder of one Manak and causing injuries to two prosecution witnesses. The trial court had convicted the petitioners under sections 304/149, 324/149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and compensation. The petitioners challenged these convictions, arguing that the incident constituted a sudden fight without premeditation, evidenced by injuries sustained by both the complainant and the accused parties during the same transaction. Consequently, they contended that the application of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was legally unsustainable, as each individual should be held responsible only for their specific acts. Furthermore, the petitioners alleged that the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by the accused party. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised regarding the nature of the occurrence and the applicability of vicarious liability required further examination. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal and directed an early hearing due to the short sentences involved.
- Does a sudden fight without premeditation preclude the application of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a conviction under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when injuries sustained by the accused party are suppressed by the complainant?
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SAIDUZZMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 28-6-1994 whereby Criminal Appeal No,247/91 filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial Court were confirmed.
2. ' The petitioners, along with five others, were tried for murder of one Manak and for causing injuries to two P.Ws. Namely, Ghulam Sabir and Muhammad Aslam before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, who vide his judgment dated 12-2-1991 acquitted five accused persons and convicted the petitioners under sections 304/149, P.P.C., 324/149, P.P.C. And 148, P.P.C. All the petitioners were convicted under section 304/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. With fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default to suffer one year's S.I. All the petitioners were also convicted under section 324/149, P.P.C.
3. And awarded two years' R.I. On two counts. The petitioners were also convicted under section 148, P.P.C. And awarded one year's R.I. In addition to these conviction and sentences, the petitioners were also ordered to pay Rs,10,000 each, as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, Manak, or in default to suffer imprisonment for six months. The fine on recovery was also ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. All the sentences awarded to the petitioners were to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the petitioners. On appeal, a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court maintained their conviction and sentences.
4. In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it was a case of sudden fight and there was no premeditation on the part of the petitioners as would appear from the place where the occurrence took place and the manner in which not only the complainant side was injured but two persons of accused's side were also injured in the same transaction. It is, accordingly, contended by the learned counsel that in such a case each person is to be held responsible for his individual act and, therefore, conviction of all the five accused persons under sections 304/149 and 324/149, P.P.C. Was not sustainable in law. The learned counsel also contended that the injuries suffered by the accused party in the transaction were suppressed by the complainant side while lodging in the case which fact was not duly considered by the two Courts below, while awarding sentences under sections 304/149 and 324/149, P.P.C. The contention raised by the learned counsel requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal in the case. In view of the short sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners, we further direct that the appeal may be fixed for hearing at an early date.