1988 PLP 1143 (SCMR)
THE STATE‑‑Petitioner Versus KAMAL DIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1143 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE‑‑Petitioner Versus KAMAL DIN and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1143 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1143 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1143 (SCMR) (THE STATE‑‑Petitioner Versus KAMAL DIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Zubair, Addl. Advocate‑General Punjab, instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th March, 1988.
- There existed a dispute between the parties respecting possession of a certain Ihata. The Ihata in dispute was in possession of the respondents who had also obtained a stay order from the civil Court that their possession would not be disturbed. The complainant party are said to have come on a trolley armed in order to take forcible possession of the disputed Ihata. Apprehending danger to their lives as well as property the accused side had retaliated. The Courts below not only accepted the defence version and accepted the plea of the respondents of self‑defence, but also did not rely on the partisan ocular testimony which was uncorroborated. Furthermore some of the members of the accused party named by them, namely Mehr Din and Latif respondents stated to have been armed with guns were found innocent in the course of investigation and were as such placed in column 2 of the challan submitted by the Crimes Branch as deposed by Khawaja Muhammad Tufail S.P. D.W. Mr. S.M. Zubair Additional Advocate‑General attempted to argue that even if the right of self‑defence was available in this case the respondents had exceeded the same. But we are not persuaded by this argument of the learned Additional Advocate‑General merely for the reason that two persons were killed and one was injured in the incident. The person who was directly connected with the motive in this case namely Mian Nisar Ahmad P.W. was also present on the spot but he had not received any injury at the hands of the respondents which meant that the fire‑arms were used by the respondents in order to scare away the raiding party and the deceased were killed and injured received injuries in the course of said firing as they were members of the raiding party. In that view of the matter we do not consider it to be a fit case for interference.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 22nd September, 1985 in Criminal Appeal No.84 of 1985). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.302/307/148/149‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑ Right of self‑defence, exercise of‑‑Person directly connected with motive spared by accused‑‑ Inference‑‑Petition against acquittal‑ Dispute over possession of property‑‑Two persons killed and one injured‑‑Accused found in legal possession of property in dispute and their plea of self‑defence believed and order of acquittal upheld in appeal‑‑Leave to appeal sought against acquittal of accused‑ Contention that even if right of self‑defence was available in the case, respondents had exceeded the same, repelled‑‑Person directly connected with motive and present at the spot, not receiving any injury at the hands of accused‑‑Inference drawn that fire‑arms were used by accused in order to scare away the raiding party and victims received injuries in the course of said firing as they were members of raiding party‑‑Not being a fit case for interference, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the State against acquittal of the respondents. The respondents were charged for offences under section 302/307/148/149, P.P. C. but they were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal. Subsequently the appeal of the State filed before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench was dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the respondents was maintained. The prosecution version is that the respondents armed with fire‑arms and lethal weapons had attacked the complainant side resulting in the murders of Muhammad Ishaque and Mahni and injuries to Qasim P.W. The occurrence has not been denied by the accused side but they have given their own version thereof which was to the effect that they had caused injuries to the complainant side in the exercise of their right of private defence of self and property. There existed a dispute between the parties respecting possession of a certain Ihata. The Ihata in dispute was in possession of the respondents who had also obtained a stay order from the civil Court that their possession would not be disturbed. The complainant party are said to have come on a trolley armed in order to take forcible possession of the disputed Ihata. Apprehending danger to their lives as well as property the accused side had retaliated. The Courts below not only accepted the defence version and accepted the plea of the respondents of self‑defence, but also did not rely on the partisan ocular testimony which was uncorroborated. Furthermore some of the members of the accused party named by them, namely Mehr Din and Latif respondents stated to have been armed with guns were found innocent in the course of investigation and were as such placed in column 2 of the challan submitted by the Crimes Branch as deposed by Khawaja Muhammad Tufail S.P. D.W. Mr. S.M. Zubair Additional Advocate‑General attempted to argue that even if the right of self‑defence was available in this case the respondents had exceeded the same. But we are not persuaded by this argument of the learned Additional Advocate‑General merely for the reason that two persons were killed and one was injured in the incident. The person who was directly connected with the motive in this case namely Mian Nisar Ahmad P.W. was also present on the spot but he had not received any injury at the hands of the respondents which meant that the fire‑arms were used by the respondents in order to scare away the raiding party and the deceased were killed and injured received injuries in the course of said firing as they were members of the raiding party. In that view of the matter we do not consider it to be a fit case for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed M.I./S-137/S Petition dismissed.