Old age of accused

2014 YLR 2532 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34Qatl-e-amd. common intentionBail, grant ofFurther inquiryBelated implicationOld age of accusedAccused was involved in the case six days after the occurrence

No worthwhile source of information regarding actual involvement of accused in the commission of the offence was put forward

Present case was one of further inquiry

Accused was aged about 64/65 years

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

2013 YLR 235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 426Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)/34Qatl-e-amd, common intentionSuspension of sentence pending appealOld age of accusedAccused and co-accused persons were alleged to have made a murderous assault upon the deceased partyTrial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment

Contentions of accused were that as per prosecution's own case he had not been attributed any fire-shot injury to either of deceased persons; that role of raising 'lalkara' alleged against him did not fit in the circumstances of the case, and that he was aged about 75 years and being senescent was entitled for the suspension of sentence

Validity

Accused was alleged to have raised a 'lalkara' whereafter co-accused persons fired at the deceased and then he allegedly made indiscriminate firing

No specific injury had been attributed to the accused, who was an octogenarian

No chance of hearing of appeal in the near future existed

Application was allowed and sentence imposed on accused was suspended.

2013 YLR 1527 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302 & 324Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amdAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inConversion of conviction under S. 302, P.P.C. into S. 302(c), P.P.C.Mitigating circumstancesMatter involving family membersOld age of accused

Accused allegedly quarrelled with his wife and inflicted hatchet blows upon her, and during the occurrence one of his blows hit his daughter(deceased), who died as result thereof

Trial Court convicted accused under Ss. 302 and 324, P.P.C and sentenced him to life imprisonment

Accused admitted the incident but contended that he had quarrelled with his wife, and during the occurrence his deceased-daughter intervened, and when he pushed her back, she collided with a wall and died; that it was not a pre-planned or intentional murder, therefore, his conviction under S. 302, P.P.C. was not warranted and liable to be set-aside

Validity

Wife and a daughter of the accused appeared as prosecution witnesses and implicated the accused for causing murder of his deceased-daughter and for inflicting hatchet blows upon the wife

Both said witnesses were cross-examined at length but defense counsel could not shake their evidence

Presence of said witnesses in the house at the time of the occurrence was free from doubt

Daughter of accused who appeared as prosecution witness could not be expected to implicate her father falsely in a heinous offence

Son of accused acted as mashir of place of occurrence, examination of dead body, inquest report etc. and he also supported the prosecution

Investigating officer also corroborated the evidence of complainant and other witnesses in each aspect of the case

Ocular testimony was corroborated by contents of F.I.R., recovery of crime weapon, medical evidence, motive and circumstantial evidence

Trial Court had come to the correct conclusion that prosecution succeeded in proving charge of qatl-e-amd of deceased-daughter and charge of intention of committing qatl-e-amd of injured-wife

Conviction of accused under S. 324, P.P.C. for causing injuries to his wife was maintained, however his conviction under S. 302, P.P.C. for causing death of his daughter was converted into 302(c), P.P.C.

Due to mitigating circumstances as the matter related to a family and keeping in view old age of accused i.e. 67 years, his sentence was modified from life imprisonment to imprisonment for 12 years, and he was also directed to pay Rs. 100,000 as compensation to mother of deceased

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.