Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 394 of 1968, decided on 17th February 1969.

Ss. 302/149 & 304/149 read with S. 299, Explanation 2‑Murder‑Evidence of eye‑witnesses showing that no body could rescue deceased and take him to hospital after being hit because accused kept on firing for two hours and that deceased died due to profuse bleeding‑Circum stances indicating that accused had intention to kill deceased Order of commitment under S. 304/149, held, directly hit by Explanation 2 to S. 299 and set aside‑Magistrate directed to commit accused under S. 302/149.

Abdul Majid Khan for Petitioner.

Rab Nawaz Niazi for Respondents.

Buland Akhtar for the State.

This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Magistrate committing all the nine respondents to the Court of Session under sections 304/149, 307/149 and 148, P. P. C.

2. 'I he facts of the case briefly stated are that on 7th July 1967 all the nine respondents while armed with deadly weapons like firearms etc., fired at Habib Ullah Khan, deceased, who subsequently died as a result thereof. They also fired at Umar Hayat P. W. but he escaped by running into a kotha of his dera. It is alleged by the eye‑witnesses that they kept on firing for about two hours and did not allow any body to rescue the deceased. After that they all left the spot. According to the medical evidence on the record the deceased had received the following injuries :‑

(1) A lacerated gun‑shot wound of entry 1" x " on the outer and middle of the left leg. Margins were inverted and enchymosed.

(2) A badly lacerated wound of exit 4" x 3" skin deep on the inner and opposite side of the left leg. There was a fracture of tibia and fibula bones.

(3) An abrasion on the front of right patella.

(4) An abrasion, " x " on the left Patella bone.

(5) Multiple abrasions on the back of all the fingers.

In the opinion of the doctor injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by a firearm and were grievous in nature, while the other injuries were simple and had been caused by a blunt weapon. The doctor Also gave the opinion that these simple injuries were probably caused as a result of a fall. He further opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 1 and 2. In cross‑examination the doctor stated that these injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the deceased had died due to lack of proper medical aid at proper time. The learned Magistrate in view of the aforemen tioned opinion of the doctor did not commit the respondents under section 302/149, P. P. C., prima facie from the evidence of the eye‑witnesses I find that nobody could have rescued the deceased and take him to the hospital after he had been hit, because the respondents had kept on firing for about two hours and that the deceased had died due to profuse bleeding. This shows that the respondents did have the intention to kill the deceased. In any case the ground taken by the learned Magistrate for not committing the respondents under section 302/149, P. P. C. is not plausible as it is hit directly by Explanation (2) to section 299, P. P. C. which reads as follows:-----

"Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented."

I, accordingly, accept the revision petition, set aside the commitment order passed by the learned Magistrate and direct him to commit the respondents under sections 302/149, 307/149, and 148, P. P. C.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.