Find a Lawyer

ZAHEER AHMAD versus THE STATE

ection Section 100 - The right to self-defense, the jurisdiction - Even if in the absence of a special request by the accused charged with exercising his right to self-defense, the entire content provided by the court in good faith It can be inferred that there was a case of self-defense. Outside - the court cannot be constrained to freely draw any conclusions, when both parties have suppressed their own part - the court had jurisdiction to reach the right to exercise its right to self-defense. , Could not be measured on a golden scale, but, if the aggressors actually used / used it to protect its right, there was no other option left. Then it cannot be ruled out for the benefit of the exclusives, which include Ahmed Khan and Nazir Ahmed, section 1999, PPC, [p66] and 1999 SCMR 803 Reef, 1999.

P L D 2017 Lahore 59

Before Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J 

ZAHEER AHMAD—Appellant

versus

The STATE—Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.396-J of 2010, heard on 1st December, 2015.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of I860)—

—S. 100—Self-defence, right of—Scope—Even in absence of a specific plea taken by accused for exercising his right of self-defence, court could infer and construe from the whole material provided in all reasonableness that case of self-defence was made out—Court could not be restrained to draw a conclusion independently, when both the parties had suppressed their respective part—Court had inquisitional jurisdiction to reach to truth—Exercising of right of self-defence, could not be measured by a golden scale, but, if a reasonable force exercised/used by the aggressed genuinely to save his right when no other option was left with him; then he could not be declined its benefits by virtue of exceptions, contained in S.100, P.P.C, [p. 66] A

Ahmad Khan v. Nazir Ahmad and others 1999 SCMR 803 ref,

(b) Penal Code (XLV of I860)—

—Ss. 302(b) & 100— Qatl-i-amd— Right of private defence, qatl-l-amd—Appreciation of evidence—Injury received by accused, was on his vital part of the body, "chest”—Accused had received two injuries; whereas, the deceased received solitary injury—Accused survived, whereas the deceased, died—Exercise of right of self-defence oj accused, had been proved which was corroborative—Accused acted in exercise of his right of self-defence legitimately within the parameters of restrictions of law—Accused, in circumstances, had committed no offence—Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused, conviction and sentence of accused, were set aside, and he was acquitted of the charge imputed against him—Accused being on bail, his surety stood discharged, in circumstances, [p. 67] B

Ali Muhammad Zahid Bokhari, Defence Counsel at state

expense.

Malik Riaz Khalid Awan for the Complainant.

Iftikhar ul Haq Ch., Addl. P.G. for the State.

Date of hearing; 1st December, 2015.

power of attorney advocate Sohawa District Jelum lawyer