BAZ MUHAMMAD vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta, which dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner and maintained his conviction and sentence under Section 324/337-F(i)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for making a murderous assault and causing injuries resulting in paralysis. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the amount of Arsh awarded against the petitioner was properly calculated in accordance with the statutory provisions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal restricted solely to the question of the proper calculation and quantification of the Arsh amount under the relevant provisions of the law. The key principle laid down is that the assessment and calculation of compensation such as Arsh must strictly adhere to the prescribed statutory framework and computation rules.
- Whether the amount of Arsh was properly calculated in accordance with the provisions of the law?
- Can a conviction under Section 324/337-F(i)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be maintained while granting leave only on the quantum of Arsh?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance
ORDER
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 2-1-1997, passed by the learned High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta, whereby it dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. Baz Muhammad petitioner alongwith co-accused Taj Muhammad was tried for offence under Section 324/337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. For making murderous assault on Noor Muhammad and his brother Muhammad Anwar and causing injuries to Muhammad Anwar with dagger. The learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to 7 years' R.I. And Rs.4,00,000 as Arsh to be paid to injured Muhammad Anwar, who according to the medical evidence was paralysed from lower part of the body. As Taj Muhammad co-accused had caused a simple injury to Noor Muhammad on his fingers, he was punished only to the extent of payment of Rs.2,000 as Daman to injured Noor Muhammad.
3. The petitioner Baz Muhammad being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence passed against him, filed appeal in the High Court, while co-accused Taj Muhammad does not appear to have filed appeal. The learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner Baz Muhammad and dismissed his appeal vide judgment dated 2-1-1997. Hence, this petition.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ishaque, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not challenge the conviction and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, but disputed the amount of Arsh awarded against him and payable to injured Muhammad Anwar, on the ground that the amount of Arsh had not been worked out in accordance with provisions of section 323 of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance.
5. After hearing the learned counsel, we grant leave only on the point whether the amount of Arsh was properly calculated in accordance with the provisions as contended by the learned counsel.