Intention

Prosecution case against accused was that he filed duty drawback claims before Federal Tax Ombudsman although he had already got encashed said claims from the department

Plea of accused was that he was unaware about the claim being encashed

Validity

Report of Investigating Officer revealed that accused had furnished an old and inaccurate pendency list of rebate claims, it was not submitted before any Customs Officer but before Federal Tax Ombudsman and it was filed unintentionally, as such S.32, Customs Act, 1969 was not attracted

No penalty under S. 32, Customs Act, 1969 could be imposed unless it was shown that mis-declaration was made to a Customs Officer with intention to avoid payment of public revenue

No chance or likelihood of conviction existed, therefore, accused was acquitted of the charge.

Intention of the accused could be adjudged from the part played by him during the occurrence.

Intention, would not imply or assume the existence of some previous design or forethought; intention would mean an actual intention, existing intention of the moment; and was proved by or inferred from the act of accused; and the circumstances of the case.

"Intention" did not imply or assume the existence of some previous design or forethought but could be proved by or inferred from the act of accused and circumstances of the case

Continuous firing by accused who was an educated person and fully aware of the consequences of his act, was reflective of his intention

Unprovoked act of firing by accused on the vital part of deceased persons, led to irresistible conclusion that accused intended to cause the death of the victims

Evidence produced by the prosecution was straightforward, confidence-inspiring, cogent, consistent, unimpeachable, unshaken and had brought home the charge against accused to the hilt

Evidence did not suffer from any infirmity

In such state of affairs it was beyond imagination to conclude that no 'mens rea' or intention was on the part of accused

Conclusion of the Trial Court regarding non-availability of "mens rea" or lack of intention to commit the murder of deceased persons having no basis and foundation, was rejected in circumstances

No reasons existed which could justify a sympathetic, a lenient or concessional treatment for accused

In absence of any mitigating and extenuating circumstances justifying the imposition of lesser punishment, sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused was converted to that of death sentence.

Where an offender with the intention of causing death or with intention of causing bodily injury to a person, by doing an act which, in the ordinary course of nature, is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death of such person, is said to commit Qatl-i-Amd

Where a person by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, causes death of any person whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, such an act committed by the offender shall be liable for Qatl-i-Amd

Weapon used for commission of an offence has to be considered for the purpose as an act with intention to cause harm to the body or mind of any person resulting into his death by means of a weapon or the act which in the ordinary course is not likely to cause death, does not constitute offence punishable under section 302, P.P.C.

Intention, therefore, is the primary consideration which shows aim and objective of an offender.

Intention is a state of mind of a person with respect to another person or thing and like any other fact is not capable of being proved through direct evidence as it is not in corporeal or tangible form

Intention, therefore, is to be determined by the overt act of the perpetrator of the crime

Conduct immediately before and at the time of occurrence and the surrounding circumstances are some facts discernible to resolve the said frame of mind of a person

In case of hurt or violence practised by the assailant upon the victim, the part of the body, kind of weapon, amount of force used and the repetitions of blows are also some of the factors which determine his intention.

Thought of a man is not triable and it is to be gathered or inferred only from his external acts and for that purpose it is necessary to examine the intention of the accused.

Definition.

Ss. 302 & 304, Part II-Applicability of sections-Section 302 applies only when accused proved beyond doubt to have struck blow with intent to kill victim-Accused if more properly to be imputed knowledge rather than intention, offence falls under S. 304, Part II and not under S. 302 or 304 Part of Penal Code 1860.-[Intention].

S. 302/149-Murder-Intention-Allowing slogans having different senses to be availed of to serve to provide clue to required intention-Held, unsafe.

Ss. 302 & 325 read with S 149-Common object of assailants to cause grievous hurt with blunt weapons-fatal injury on bead of deceased caused by A one of assailants-Death due to head injury struck by A as well as due to rupture of spleen on account of beating given by other assailants A's liability, held per majority rip greater than that of other assailants-A's conviction under S. 302 altered to on, under section 325/149

As leader of assailants A, however, awarded Maximum sentence under S. 325

[Akram, J. (contra )]

S. 302 read with S. 300, firstly, secondly and fourthly - Murder - Intention - Difficult, if not impossible, to procure direct evidence to prove intention of an individual-Intention, in most cases, to be inferred from act of accused, his conduct or other relevant circumstances of case -Injury on vital part of deceased's body-Almost invariably a Proof of intention to cause death-Accused causing fatal injury on head of deceased with a formidable hatchet-Clauses first, second and fourth of S. 300, held, clearly applicable to case and author of injury liable under S. 302-[Parmeshri Dad v. Emperor A I R 1934 Lab. 332 ; Thakar Singh and another v. Emperor A I R 1935 Lab. 97 ; Muhammad Bashir v. Crown P L D 1950 Lab. 165 ; Anwar and another v. The State P L D 1965 Lab. 378 and Pandurang and others v. State of Hyderabad A I It 1955 S C 216 dissented from].

Intention, as has often been said, is a state of mind and it can only be gathered from the evidence of overt acts and expressions. The Court cannot look into the minds of the persons accused and has, therefore, perforce together their intention from their words and deeds. In each case they must be deemed to have intended the natural and inevitable consequences of their actions and utterances. Where there are no deeds but only words the speaker's intention must be gathered from a plain reading of his words. He must be deemed to have meant what he said unless the words are ambiguous and capable of bearing more than one meaning.

Intention Intention-To be gathered or inferred only from external acts.

Ss. 441 & 448-IntentionQuestion of fact, depending on circumstances of each case.

Intention Intention - Knowledge is not same thing as intention.

S. 300, fourthly & S. 302 -Intention-Can only be inferred from proved facts-Presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts

Application of clause fourthly of S. 300-Whether restricted.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 34-Intention-To be gathered from conduct of accused and attending circumstances. In order to determine the intention of a person, it is very seldom that one can expect to find positive affirmative evidence, generally speaking, the intention is to be gathered from the conduct of the person and the attending circumstances.