Qatl-bis-sabab

2025 PCrLJ 1341 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 322Qatl-bis-sababBail, grant ofFurther inquiry

Accusation against the applicant was that due to a matrimonial dispute between the deceased and his wife, he recorded a video clip, making allegations against his wife to the extent that she had indulged in extra matrimonial affairs with the applicant thus, he had no option but to commit suicide which he did, therefore case against applicant was registered under Section 322, P.P.C based on such video clip

Section 322, P.P.C, qatl-bis-sabab is punishable with Diyat only

Accused could not be sent behind bars when charged with an offence under S.322, P.P.C because, even if he pleaded guilty at his trial and was convicted, he could only be imprisoned if he failed to pay the Diyat sum

Incarceration of accused would, therefore, amount to punishing him before conviction

Where the criminal liability of an accused of an offence is Diyat only, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause

Where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the acceptance of bail is the rule and rejection is an exception

Besides, the liability of the present applicant or charges leveled against him could only be determined by the trial Court after recording and evaluating the evidence

At the bail granting stage, the material available on record was to be sifted through to establish whether, on the face of the record, the accused person before the Court could be connected to the crime in question, hence no detailed inquiry was to be conducted by the Court

Thus, being so, the detention of the applicant pending trial could only be justified if the case falls within the scope of any of the exceptions

Nothing was on record of the present case that might attract any of the said exceptions and justify the denial of post-arrest bail to the applicant at present stage

Facts and circumstances of the case, made it a case of further inquiry

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

2023 YLR 364 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 322Qatl-bis-sababBail, grant ofScopeAccused was alleged to have been a cause of the suicide of deceased lady, as such, he was charged under S. 322, P.P.C.Deceased lady was fiancée of the accused

Before engagement with the accused, principal accused had sought hand of the deceased lady but the deceased and her family members had refused his offer

Principal accused was annoyed with the engagement

Principal accused had forced the deceased lady to break the engagement with the accused

Principal accused had blackmailed and harassed the deceased lady

Accused was not directly involved and no specific role was attributed to the accused

Offence under S. 322, P.P.C., was punishable only with diyat and the same did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

2022 YLR 63 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 322Sindh Health Care Commission Act, 2013 (VII of 2014), Ss. 4(6)(b) & 29Qatl-bis-sababInvestigation into allegations of mal-administration and malpractice of medical professionalsImmunityScopePetitioners sought quashing of FIR lodged under S.322, P.P.C. against themValidity

Section 322, P.P.C. attracted to the case if death was caused due to criminal negligence of the petitioners (Medical professionals)

Petitioners belonged to medical profession and settled test of medical negligence provided that "a medical professional was not guilty of negligence if he had acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of a medical men skilled in the particular art"

Sindh Health Care Commission was constituted to determine whether the petitioners had committed medical negligence or not

High Court referred the matter to Sindh Health Care Commission under S.4(6)(b) of Sindh Health Care Commission Act, 2013 for inquiry/investigation with direction to transmit the result of investigation to the Trial Court

Constitutional Petition was disposed of accordingly.

2021 MLD 1126 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.497 & 382-BPenal Code (XLV of 1860), S.322Qatl-bis-sababPeriod of detention to be considered while awarding sentence of imprisonmentBail, grant ofScope

Accused, who was a doctor by profession, sought post-arrest bail in FIR wherein he was charged under S.322, P.P.C. and it was alleged that he committed qatl-bis-sabab of the son of complainant by showing negligence while conducting surgery on the deceased

Punishment for qatl-bis-sabab provided under S.322, P.P.C., was 'Diyat' only

Accused could be kept in confinement in case he committed default in payment of Diyat amount and S.382-B, Cr.P.C., did not apply in such like case, as such, incarceration of accused during trial would amount to punishment before his conviction as well as against the mandate of law vis-a-vis applicability of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of post-arrest bail was allowed.

2020 PCrLJ 1530 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 322Qatl-bis-sababBail, grant ofFurther inquiryCompletion of investigationAccused, previous non-convictScopePetitioner sought post-arrest bail in FIR wherein he was alleged to have been a cause of the death of complainant's son

Contents of FIR revealed that deceased, on his own accord and volition, had started drinking liquor and thereafter left the house of co-accused alone and subsequently died

Prosecution evidence was devoid of any allegation against the petitioner that he was responsible for the death of the deceased by doing an unlawful act

Co-accused persons were admitted to bail on the concessionary statements made by complainant as well as witnesses

Section 322, P.P.C. showed that no punishment of any period was provided except the payment of diyat

Petitioner was a previous non-convict

Investigation qua petitioner was complete and his person was no more required for further investigation

Case of petitioner was one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of bail was accepted, in circumstances.

2020 PCrLJ 1164 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 322Qatl-bis-sababBailScope

Punishment for S. 322, P.P.C. is made punishable by the Legislature through diyat only, the value of which is mentioned in S. 323, P.P.C. as 30630 grams of silver

Section 322, P.P.C. is not made punishable with some imprisonment and in Second Schedule of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 it is shown as non-bailable, hence the provision of S. 322, P.P.C. is to be treated as not attracting the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

2020 MLD 474 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.322Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 176Qatl-bis-SababAppreciation of evidenceDisinterment of dead body, application forScope

Petitioner contended that disinterment of dead body of the deceased (wife of the petitioner) had been wrongly allowed by the Courts below and contended that during cleaning of a pistol by his son, inadvertently its trigger got pressed, two fire shots emitted out of it hitting the abdomen of his wife

Petitioner did not inform the police due to her critical condition and shifted her to the hospital, but she succumbed to injuries

Petitioner, being husband of the deceased, along with other legal heirs neither wanted to get the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased nor register a criminal case

Station House Officer Police Station instead of registering a criminal case, only recorded Rapt and entrusted the matter to his subordinate Police Officer to inquire under S. 174, Cr.P.C.

Said Police Officer moved application to the Judicial Magistrate to get permission for post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased

Judicial Magistrate after recording presence of legal heirs, without due verification from any independent quarter, turned down the request of the police by giving observation that since the death of the deceased was result of receiving accidental fire shots the legal heirs of the deceased did not want to get the post-mortem examination conducted over her dead body

Mother of the deceased, later on, submitted application before the Judicial Magistrate requesting for disinterment and post mortem over her dead body

Said applicant contended that the death of the deceased was not the result of accidental fire shot rather the same was an intentional murder, committed by her husband and son, through two successive fire shots

Said application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate

Revision was filed against the said order, which was dismissed

Validity

Admittedly, death of deceased was result of two successive fire-arm shots by the real son of deceased who cleaning the pistol

Death certificate of deceased also confirmed that she had died as a result of firearm shots

Contents of present petition clearly showed the commission of offence, qatl-bis-sabab, punishable under S.322, P.P.C., which was a cognizable offence

Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby he turned down the request of the police for post-mortem examination, on the concession of the legal heirs of the deceased, amounted to diverting the process of law by allowing the legal heirs to compound the offence by way of application to waive their rights of qisas

Said order appeared to be illegal

Courts below had passed the impugned orders quite in accordance with the law as the medical evidence could not be dispensed with for establishing a charge or offence, against a human body

Petition having no force was dismissed accordingly.

2018 PLD 903 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 321Qatl-bis-SababMens ReaApplicability

In order to attract mischief of Qatl-bis-Sabab attribution of mens rea to wrongdoer is not condition precedent and instead, actus reus of such person is made culpable.

2018 PLD 903 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 321Qatl-bis-SababMedical negligenceCriminal proceedingsPreconditions

For initiating criminal proceedings in cases of medical negligence, complaining person is required to show that death was due to gross negligence or recklessness of doctor.

2017 MLD 1109 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 322Qatl-bis-sababAppreciation of evidenceSuspension of execution of sentence of imprisonment

Accused was convicted under S. 322, P.P.C. to pay an amount of diyat to the legal heirs of deceased or kept into custody

Accused contended that he was a destitute and on account of impecuniosity, he had hitherto not paid diyat to accused, therefore, he could be released on bail

Validity

Contention of accused regarding his being destitution had no force

Accused was represented by a private counsel during trial

Nothing had been brought on record as to the financial condition of accused and same was not raised by the accused in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Deceased was the high hopes of his family

Application of accused was dismissed accordingly.

2017 PCrLJ 689 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S.497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 322Qatl-bis-sababBail, refusal ofAllegation as per FIR was that due to highhandedness and cruel attitude of accused, the lady committed suicideAccused was nominated in FIRAccused created environment through his conduct, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide

Deceased lady had contracted marriage with the accused and after marriage, accused started teasing and maltreated the lady

Record showed that deceased lady had died due to haemorrhage and excessive bleeding

Accused was present in the house at the time of incident and watched the tragic occurrence like a silent spectator

Accused did not remove the victim lady to the hospital to save her life, which indicated his ill intention

Negative role/attitude of the accused made him responsible for contributory negligence towards death of deceased

Bail was refused in circumstances.

2015 PLD 23 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.321Qatl-bis-sababCondition precedent

One of the conditions precedent for an offence to fall within the purview of "qatl-bis-sabab" was that accused should not have the intention to cause any death or harm to any other person.

2013 MLD 250 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.321 & 322/34Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-AQatl-bis-sababQuashing of F.I.R.Death of deceased was allegedly a suicide

Letters, allegedly written by deceased before his death, had been made the basis for enroping accused persons in the case

Deceased had mentioned in letters that he was committing suicide on the ground that he did not want to live in the hostel

Mother of the deceased had stated that deceased was not happy with the hostel life and was reluctant to leave the home and to go to the hostel

Nothing was available in the investigation and the record collected by the prosecution, that accused had committed any illegal act which could be the cause of the death of deceased

Prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., the complainant or any family member of the deceased had not complained against any teacher or the school administration regarding any illegal act or harassment to the deceased

Even on the day of occurrence, accused were not charged by the complainant and the incident was declared as accidental one

Parents of the deceased seemed to have not even assessed the temperament, psychological aptitude and the extreme hatred developed by the deceased against the hostel life, which caused the extreme reaction of the deceased in the shape of an occurrence, which was an individual act, and not the result of any illegal act of accused persons

No case was made out against the accused persons and S.321, P.P.C. was not attracted

No illegal act could be said to have been committed by accused persons, on the basis of facts admitted and patent on record; in such circumstances, allowing the prosecution or Investigating Agency to continue with the investigation, would amount to abuse of the process of law

Case registered against accused persons vide impugned F.I.R. under S.322/34, P.P.C., was quashed, in circumstances.

2013 YLR 248 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497(2) & 526Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 322Qatl-bis-sababBail, grant ofFurther inquiryTransfer of caseDetermining time of death of deceasedMethodScope

Allegation against the accused persons was that they committed rape with the victim and took her photographs with a mobile phone before murdering her

Victim's body was found in a well

Contentions of the accused persons were that investigation into the case revealed that the victim's family suspected her of having illicit relations with the accused persons because of which she was murdered by her own family; that post-mortem report of the victim indicated that her death had occurred at about 11 am, whereas the F.I.R. alleged that it had occurred at about 8 am, and that pre-arrest bail application of the accused persons was refused by Trial Court with observations that showed a predisposition of mind, therefore, the case should be transferred to any other court

Contention of the complainant party was that they had not murdered the victim for allegedly having illicit relations with the accused persons because if that was the case then under the tradition of Karo Kari both the victim and accused persons would have been murdered

Validity

Contention of the complainant party regarding Karo Kari was of no relevance because it would be axiomatic to say that if only one was murdered and not both, the story must not be believed

Regarding contention of accused persons with regard to time of death, normal method of determining time of death was through measurement of body temperature and state of rigor mortis

When at the time of recovery, body was not in ambient temperature but either had elevated or reduced temperature, the rigor mortis and drop in temperature would vary accordingly

Since in the present case body was recovered from a well, therefore, it was yet to be seen whether the time described in the postmortem report, for water in a well in the month of July, was a true indicator of the time of death giving the fact that temperature of water was less than the temperature of air

Mobile phone with which the accused persons allegedly took photographs of the victim was not available on record

Medical report was also silent with regard to the alleged rape of the victim

Similarly there was no evidence that accused persons murdered her and threw her in the well

Case was one of further inquiry

Accused persons were allowed bail.

2012 YLR 1889 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.322Qatl-bis-sababBail, grant of

Young son of the complainant, no doubt, had lost his life in an unfortunate manner, but no incriminating material was available on record to believe that the accused had fenced the field with an electric current, or he had contributed towards the eventuality in any manner

Complainant had himself made it a case of two versions, one contained in the F.I.R. and the other in his supplementary statement

Trial Court would determine after recording evidence of the parties as to which of the two stories was nearer to truth

Abscondence of accused must give way to his bail plea, when his case had categorically constituted need for further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

2012 YLR 1889 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 322Qatl-bis-sababBailAbscondencePrinciple

Element of abscondence must give way to the bail plea of an accused whose case categorically constitutes need for further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.