1985 P Cr (PLP)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑-- ‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Occurrence taking place suddenly without preparation by parties who gave injuries to each other‑‑Deceased receiving six injuries including two on head but circumstances of case not showing that undue advantage was taken by accused in causing injuries to deceased‑ Accused not exceeding his right of self‑defence‑‑Order of acquittal of accused maintained.‑‑[Private defence, right of]. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑-- ‑‑--‑S. 304/34‑‑Quantum of injuries cannot be weighed in golden scales. Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Sultan Jan aged about 65 died of blunt injuries received by him in an occurrence on 19‑6‑1977 in the house of Isam Gul. Respondents 1 to 4 were tried for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. but they were acquitted of the charges against them. The learned Additions! Sessions Judge, Mianwali vide his judgment, dated 8‑4‑1980 found the case against Ata Ullah, Mst. Maryam and Mst. Bashiran to be doubtful. He acquitted them after giving them the benefit of doubt. Muhammad Nawaz respondent No. 1 was himself injured during the occurrence. He admitted causing injuries to the deceased but he was acquitted when it was found that he had the right to defend himself. The petitioner, who is a son of Sultan Jan, challenges the acquittal of the respondents, but the learned counsel does not press his petition against Ata Ullah, Mst. Maryam and Mst. Bashiran respondents but prays for issue of process against Muhammad Nawaz respondent No.1 as, according to the learned counsel he has exceeded his right of self‑defence and was, according to him, guilty of an offence under section 304, P.P.C. Muhammad Nawaz is the maternal‑uncle of Mst. Bashiran who was married to Ghulam Qadir petitioner, the son of Sultan Jan deceased. She had come to live with her uncle after being estranged from her husband. The occurrence took place in the house of a third person, namely, Isam Gul, where Sultan Jan and Muhammad Newaz both happened to be present. They exchanged hot words and both picked up Dandas from that place and caused injuries to each other. It is obviously a case where there is no previous preparation. The occurrence took place suddenly in which both parties gave injuries to each other. It is true that Muhammad Nawaz respondent received one contused wound scalp deep on his head apart from pain over his right chest and lumber region, while the deceased received six injuries including two on the head, but the circumstances of the case do not show that an undue advantage was taken by Muhammad Nawaz in causing injuries to the deceased. Even otherwise the quantum of injuries cannot be weighed in the golden scales. I am, therefore, not in agreement with the learned counsel that Muhammad Nawaz respondent No.1 exceeded his right of self‑defence in the circumstances of the case. The revision petition is dismissed. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.