P L D 1950 Baghdad﷓ul﷓Jadid 59 (PLP)

Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1949. decided on 18th June 1949, from the order of Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan. Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

S.,302‑‑Violent blow by accused with lathi on vulnerable part of body as head‑Death caused Offence committed. A person delivering a violent, blow with a lethal weapon like a lathi on a vulnerable part of the body as the head must be deemed to have intended to cause such bodily injury as he knew was likely to cause the death of the' person to whom the injury was caused. A I R 1930 Lah. 490 relied on ; 1927 Cr. L. J 33 distinguished ; A I R 1928 Lah. 92 and 5 P R 1898 (Cr.) referred to. Ahmad Bakhsh was tried and convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan and he was sentenced to transportation for life This is an appeal on behalf of the convict. The learned counsel who argued the appeal on behalf of the convict prayed the Court for the reduction of sentence. If his request is accepted the con viction should be altered from section 302 Indian Penal Code to one under section 304 (II) Indian Penal Code. In order to dispose of this contention of the learned counsel it would be advisable to give a brief statement of the case. Gul Mohd. P. W. 7, son of 161st. Bachhi deceased and the accused lived in contiguous houses. 61st. Sharifan P. W, 5 wife of Gul Mohd. is related to Ahmad, accused. On 23rd of June 1948, accused was abusing sitting in his house to Gul Mohd. and his people. 141st. Bachhi asked the accused not to abuse them. This exasperated the accused who took up a heavy wooden pounder Ex. P1 and gave a blow on the head‑of the old lady who died the next night at 11. The learned counsel's contention was that the act of his client was not premeditated and that the blow on the head of the deceased was given by Ahmad in the heat of passion and consequently he could not be held guilty under sec. 302 Indian Penal Code. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on 1927 Cr. L. J. page 33. The original ruling is rot produced before us. It has been referred to in the .Law of Crimes by Ratan Lal on page 734. To us the facts of that case appear to be different from the facts‑, of .the present case. In that ruling both parties abused each other when the fatal blow was given by the accused to the daceased. Here the accused was at fault from the start. It was he who had commenced abusing the family of the deceased. It is not in the evidence that the deceased Mst. Bacbhi retaliated by abusing the accused or his family. She rather requested him not to abuse her family. There was no cause there‑ fore for the heat. of passion. The act of the accused was manifestly unjustified and he must be responsible for the consequences of his action. To our mind the view adopted in 1930 L. 490 applies to the present case. It was held by the Division Bench that the best criterion of the force and character of the blow is to regard the result which it has effected. A person deliver ing a violent blow with a lethal weapon like a lathi on a vulnerable part of the body as the head must be deemed to have intended to cause such bodily injury as he knew was likely to cause the death of the person to whom the injury was caused. Help was sought in this connection from A I R 1928 Lab. 92 and 5 P R 1898 (Cr). The statement of Dr. Peer Bakhsh in this case recorded on 20th of January, 1949 was that both the parietal and temporal bones were broken as the result of the injury No. 1 caused on the head of the deceased. It resulted in profuse bleeding and according to‑him the fracture of bones was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. With this evidence oil the file, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the counsel that it is a case which calls for reduction in the sentence. We therefore dismiss this appeal. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.