Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1981, decided on 6th March, 1982.
-- S. 299 read with S. 304 Part II & S. 325-Culpable homicide ---Conviction, alteration of - One of deceaseds' arm and a leg fractured while no other injury sustained by him on any vital part of his body-Deceased an old man of 60 years and dying in hospital because of certain complications arising out of having to stay in bed for a long time-Death of deceased, held, could not be connected with injuries and hence no case of culpable homicide made out-Conviction of accused under S. 304, Part II, P. F. C. altered to one under S. 325, P. P. C. in circumstances.
Malik Muhammad Khan for Appellants.
J. V. Gardner for the State.
Date of hearing : 6th March, 1982.
Khuda Bakhsh Appellant, his two sons Rahim Bakhsh and Latif appellants along with Yousuf and Sher were tried for an offence under sec tion 302, P. P. C. for the murder of Muhammad Khan deceased. They were initially challaned under section 325, P. P. C. but on the death of Muhammad Khan it was converted into an offence under section 302, P. P. C. They trial Court acquitted Yousuf and Sher but convicted Khuda Bakhsh, Rahim Bakhsh and Latif appellants for an offence under section 304, Part II read with section 34, P. P. C. and sentenced them to seven years R. I. and to a fine of Rs. 5,000 each or in default to undergo R. I. for a further period of one year. It was directed that the fine if realised shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. The appellants have challenged the conviction and sentence in the present appeal.
2. The occurrence took place on 3rd July, 1979 at 8-00 a. m. in the Ihata of Muhammad Khan deceased. The parties were locked in litigation and were to appear in Court on the following day. It was alleged in the F. I. R. that in order- to force the issues injuries had been caused to Muhammad Khan deceased which resulted in his death later on. It may be mentioned here that Muhammad Khan died 59 days after the occurrence in the hospital. The learned counsel has not pressed the case on facts but has argued that it cannot be a case of culpable homicide.
3. The deceased received two grievous injuries. One of his arms and a leg were fractured. There was no injury on the vital part of the body of the deceased. He was an old man of 60 and died in hospital because of certain complications arising out of having to stay in bed for a long time. His death, therefore, cannot be connected with the injuries and consequently it cannot be a case of homicide culpable or otherwise. The findings of the trial Court that this was a case under section 304, Part II, P. P. C. are, therefore, not correct. It is a case under sec tion 325, P. P. C. and the appellants cannot be burdened with a charge stronger than this. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under A section 304, Part II is, therefore, set aside. They are instead held guilty of an offence under section 325/34, P. P. C. and are convicted accordingly. They are sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by them and to a fine of Rs. 5000 each or in default to undergo further R. I. for on year each. The fine if realised shall be paid as compensation to the heir of the deceased.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer