REHMAT ALI alias REHMA vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Waris. The petition was filed with a delay of 120 days, and the Court found no sufficient grounds for condonation, rendering it liable for dismissal on limitation alone. On merits, the petitioner argued that his conviction was unsustainable because his co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence and that the offense should have been categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, affirming that courts may sift grains from the chaff to convict specific accused where involvement is established beyond doubt, despite acquitting others. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner's act of arming himself and forcibly retrieving his bullock, resulting in murder, constituted culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a conviction be sustained against an accused when co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence?
- Does the act of arming oneself to forcibly retrieve property resulting in a killing fall under Section 302 or Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal liable to dismissal if it is filed with a significant delay without sufficient grounds for condonation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Rehmat Ali alias Rehma petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 19-9-1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Criminal Appeal No,728/86 filed by him against his conviction and sentence under section 302/34, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Muhammad Waris deceased on 23-5-1983 at 9-10 a.m. In the area of Sheroke, Police Station Farooqabad, District Sheikupura, was dismissed.
2. We have heard Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
3. The petition is barred by 120 days. An application for coadunation of delay has been filed but the grounds mentioned therein do not justify condensation of delay. Hence the petition is liable to dismissal on this score alone. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel argued that on the same evidence two of the co-accused of the petitioners were acquitted and the same evidence legally could not be made the basis for the conviction of the petitioner. In the alternative he submitted that the occurrence occurred all of a sudden on account of the demand of the petitioner for the return of the bullock tethered by the deceased allegedly due to damage to his crop by the animal and that the offence could only fall within section 304, Part II, P.P.C. Both the arguments do not merit consideration. It is by now well settled that the grains have to be sifted from the chaff and the Courts while extending the benefit of doubt t some of the accused as a measure of abundant caution can convict the other accused whose involvement in the occurrence is established beyond any shadow of doubt. The petitioner on coming to know of his bullock having been removed by the deceased on account of damage to his crop, armed himself with deadly weapon and started with the clear intention of forcibly bringing back the bullock and in the process caused the murder of the deceased which clearly fell within the mischief of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under section 302, P.P.C: However, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case, leniency has already been shown to the petitioner in awarding the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life.
' Resultantly, there being no merit in the instant petition, the same is diminished and leave to appeal is refused.