GHULAM HUSSAIN vs AHMAD YAR and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case where the respondents were initially convicted by the trial court for offences under sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with various sentences of imprisonment and financial penalties (Arsh and Daman). The High Court, on appeal, found that the complainant party had initiated the trouble and that the accused acted in self-defence while protecting their land possession. Consequently, the High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences to the period already undergone and set aside the orders for compensation, Arsh, and Daman. The petitioner challenged the waiver of Daman. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's findings were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. Finding that the High Court had thoroughly appraised the evidence and correctly applied principles of criminal justice, the Supreme Court held that where an accused acts in self-defence against an aggressor, they are not liable for Daman. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Are accused persons liable for the payment of Daman when they are found to have acted in self-defence?
- Can a sentence of Daman be waived if the court determines the accused acted in self-defence against an aggressor?
- Does the failure of a complainant to explain injuries sustained by the accused undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The respondents were tried in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha for offences under sections 302/324/337/148/149, P.P.C. They were convicted under sections 302/337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(i) and 337-F(v) by the trial Court and sentenced as under:--
(a) respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to life imprisonment and compensation amounting to Rs, 10,000 each to be paid to the legal heirs of Darya Khan deceased in default whereof to undergo six months' R.I.;
(b) respondents Nos.16 to 19 to two years' R.I. And Arsh amounting to Rs,3,125;
(c) respondents Nos.5 and 6 to two years' R.I. And Arsh amounting to Rs,6,250;
(d) respondents Nos.7 and 8 to one year R.I. And Daman amounting to Rs,5,000;
(e) respondents Nos.9, 10 and 11 to six months' R.I. And Daman amounting to Rs,2,000 each;
(f) respondent No,12 to two years' R.I. And Arsh amounting to Rs,12,500;
(g) respondents Nos.13 and 14 to one year R.I. And Daman amountii to Rs,5,000 each;
(h) respondent No,15 to six years' R.I. And Daman of Rs,5,000; all the convicts were given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.;
(j) respondents Nos:20 and 21 were, however, acquitted of the charge.
2. In appeal, the learned Judge of the High Court in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the impugned judgment reached the following conclusion which are reproduced below:-- "16 As many as nine persons namely Abdullah, Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Amin, Imam Baksh, Matah, Ijaz, Muhammad Rashid, Ghulam Habib and Allah Ditta were injured during the incident on the side of the accused. Matah who was not accused in the case had nine injuries on his person while others had 30 injuries on their persons. The complainant never furnished any explanation in respect of injuries received by the accused. The story of the complainant obviously was less than honest and cannot be accepted as true.
"17 I have considered the respective stands of the parties in the light of material on record and am of the view that trouble was initiated by the complainant party where after accused had to react in order to defend the possession of piece of land which they had acquired from Zargars' family.
Obviously it was a free fight but the trouble was initiated by the complainant party itself and it could not derive any premium out of greater loss received during the incident. In this view of the matter, there was no justification for awarding longer sentences to accused or for keeping them behind the bars. Therefore, while maintaining conviction of appellant as recorded by trial Court they are sentenced to terms of imprisonment already undergone by them. Direction issued by the trial Court in respect of payment of compensation, Arsh and Daman is set side as the accused apparently had acted in self-defence. Ghulam Muhammad, Allah Ditta and Muhammad Amin are in custody. They shall be released from prison if not wanted in any other case. Rest of the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentence of Daman could not have been waived or set aside in such a situation. When questioned as to whether in a case where convicts were found to have acted in their self-defence and caused injuries, they would still be liable to punishment of Daman was not able to satisfy us that they would be. The sentence was reduced to already undergone on the assumption that while acting in self-defence, they might have transgressed the proper limits but in such a case, the very causing of injuries to the complainant side who was found to be aggressor were not liable to punishment of. Daman, therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that punishment of Daman could not have been waived has no force.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the High Court in paragraphs 16 and 17 reproduced above are based on misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence. We have observed that the learned Judge of the High Court has thoroughly and carefully examined each and every aspect of the case and the evidence on record to come to the said conclusion which is in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior Court for as to appraisal of evidence for safe administration of criminal justice.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being meritless is hereby dismissed and .