Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 265 of 1979, decided on 15th December, 1980.

(Against the judgment and order dated 27‑3‑1979 in Lahore High Court in Crl. Revision 378 of 1977).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 304, Part I read with S.99‑‑Murder‑‑Private defence, right of‑‑Accused‑respondent before firing at deceased receiving injuries at hands of complainant party and pleading self‑defence‑‑Trial Court convicting accused‑respondent under S. 304, Part I, Penal Code‑‑Reduction of sentence by High Court‑‑Held, justified in circumstances of case‑‑Leave to appeal refused. ‑‑[Price defence, right of].

Salim A . Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th December, 1980.

‑‑ Muhammad Aslam Khan, petitioner, was tried alongwith Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Bashir for the murder of Sharif. The trial Court acquitted the two co‑accused but convicted Aslam Khan under section 304(1) , P. P. C . and sentenced him to 10 years' R.I. He filed an appeal before the High Court which maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence to 7 years' R.I. Ghulam Muhammad has filed the present petition seeking leave to appeal for enhancement of the sentence awarded to Aslam Khan, respondent.

Aslam Khan, respondent is stated to have committed the murder by firing at Sharif, deceased, with his revolver. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. he admitted having fired at the deceased but gave a different version stating that he had shot only in his self‑defence when he was attacked by the complainant party consisting of four persons, including Sharif, deceased, who were armed with Sota. He stated that Sharif had given him a Sota blow and apprehending danger to his life, he had taken out his revolver and fired at him save himself. This plea was accepted and that is why he was convicted under section 304(1), P.P.C. instead of under section 302, P.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view 4 the facts of the case the High Court had erred in reducing the sentence of the respondent. We have carefully considered the facts of the cat and feel that the learned High Court was justified in reducing it sentence, specially in view of the injuries sustained by respondent are also because he had remained in jail for more than two years as under‑trail prisoner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.

S. Q. Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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