Private Defence, Right of
Private Defence, Right of legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
[Price defence, right of].
Art. 185(3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 304, Part I read with S. 300, Exception Z-[Murder]-Private defence, right of-Extent- Leave to appeal granted to examine whether in circumstances of case, petitioner was justified in firing shots in his self-defence, which resulted in death of deceased-Delay of two days in presenting petition also condoned.
S. 100-Private defence, right of-Plea not put forward in commitment proceedings but raised at trial as an alternate version-Record establishing that accused and their companions deliberately armed themselves and proceeded by a route leading to site of occurrence-Held, accused were aggressors and no question of exercise of right of private defence could arise in their favour.-[Private defence, right of].
private defence, right of-Sentence Mitigation-Increase of violence in country-A relevant circumstance-Other considerations, whether accused acted in brutal or callous manner or he was responsible for provocation leading to scuffle much more important-Sentence of transportation for life not justified should answers to such questions be in negative-Prosecution witnesses found not reliable and accused convicted on basis of his statement admitting to Lave killed deceased in his right of self-defence, answers to such questions to be gathered only from such statement Accused inflicting a solitary blow and medical evidence also showing infliction of only one stab' wound, accused, held, did not act in brutal or callous manner-Accused stating to have picked up a knife only after he was beaten by deceased, choice of weapon fortuitous a Quarrel also not of accused's own seeking-
Private defence, right of Sentence -Trial -Court prosecution case to be fabricated but in view of accused's statement of having stabbed deceased in self-defence when deceased started beating in with a danda. convicting him under S.304, Part I and sentencing him to life imprisonment-Sentence upheld by High Court- Accused having received only two minor injuries case held. clearly fell under S. 304, Part I
Sentence -Accused inflicting a solitary blow not acting in brutal or callous manner knife used in crime not held from before and found lying at spot choice of weapon thus fortuitous, quarrel also not of accused's seeking but emanating out of accused's forbidding deceased not to make objectionable gestures to ladies of locality by climbing over roofs-Sentence of life imprisonment, held, not justified in circumstances and reduced to 7 years' R. I.[Sentence-Private defence, right of].
Ss. 301, 302/34 & 307/34 read with S. 300, Exceptions I & IV [Murder-case]-Private defence, right of-Sudden and grave provocation-Ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses closely related to accused amply corroborated by recovery of unlicensed rifle with a blood stained sling and several cartridges from him on very day of occurrence-Accused's own injury by a fire-arm lending further support to prosecution case and corroborating statement of a prosecution witness: that he fired at accused to prevent hire from further firing at witness's son-Medical evidence that accused could not have bred after receiving firearm injury on his left hand demolishing, defence case of accused having fired in self-defence Accused's firing three times showing his determination to kill person aimed at and mere fact of such person not being killed but shot having hit another intervening la person and thereby killing him would not exonerate him of charge of murder-offence,
Mere presence of injuries on persons of accused without any evidence on record to indicate that injuries were received in encounter with deceased
Held, although right of self-defence could be claimed or accused even though plea not specifically raised yet in order to avail of it there must be some supporting circumstances.
Ss. 97 & 100-Private defence, right of-Fight ensuing between deceased and accused due to dispute over grazing of cattle-Fight taking place in common pasture of village-Evidence on record not indicating who started the fight first-Injuries of sharp weapon found on person of accused as well-Prosecution story as to how the fight started disbelieved by Court-Accused's plea of self-defence of person, in circumstances, accepted in its entirety and accused, held, entitled to acquittal.
S. 304-A read with S. 96-Private defence, right of-Free fight between both parties over right of pas sage through land-Preponderance of evidence in favour of accused's possession of disputed land-One person on complainant's side killed and several on both sides receiving injuries-Held, possibility of accused acting in assertion of their right of self defence of person and property on reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt not unlikely-No offence established in circumstances.
Ss. 97 & 100-Private defence, right of -Accused found to have received few minor scratches as a result of grappling with unarmed opposite party Accused stabbing two persons with chhuri and injuring another who had tried to intervene-Held, there was, in circumstances, no question of exercise of right of private defence by accused.
S. 302 read with S. 99Murder-Private defence, right of-No material on record to support plea Medical evidence available to show that injury could be self inflicted-Held, plea of self-defence not sustainable.
S. 100-Private defence, right of-Reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt Aggressive attack by several armed persons-Blows given in defence cannot be weighed in golden scales-Accused on being attacked by several assailants, dealing blunt edge hatchet blow on one assailant and sharp edge blow on another killing him-Right of private defence, held, not exceeded -Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 304.
Not specifically pleaded by accused-Plea would be allowed only on basis of "very clear evidence"-Aggression by other party not established-Plea not available to accused-Not substantiated by presence of slight injuries on person of accused.
Private Defence, Right of Facts disclosing occurrence of "free fight" between complainant's and accused's party-Right of private defence neither specifically pleaded nor established by evidence but only put forth by suggestions in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses-Plea of right of private defence not upheld Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 100
[Safdar Ali's case P L D 1953 F C 93 considered.]
Private Defence, Right of Benefit of right, however, can be givers to accused if circumstances on record raise inference of such right-Penal Code (XLV of 1860). Ss. 96, 97 & 99-Evidence Act (I of 1871), S. 105.
Private Defence, Right of Private defence, right of-Sudden fight-Both sides getting ready to fight-Question of self defence does riot arise.
S. 102-Private defence, right of-Cannot continue after assaulter has been disarmed-Not merely exceeding right of private defence but making it a pretext to cause death-Offence, murder.
"Private Defence, Right of", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/14943
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Private Defence, Right of"
P L D 1983 Supreme Court 225
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND others -Appellants Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: --- Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 99-Murder-Private defence-Right of-Leave to appeal-Granted to examine whether in circumstances of case right of self-defence of person was not available to accused.-Private defence, right of.P L D 1983 Peshwar 81
MIRDAD AND ANOTHER‑ — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — ‑Respondent
Court: -‑‑‑ Ss. 96 & 97‑Private defence, right of‑To be considered by Court on material before it even though not specifically pleaded‑Evidence failing to satisfy Court affirmatively of existence of circumstances establishing right‑‑Held, accused, nevertheless, entitled to acquittal if, upon consideration of evidence as a whole, reasonable doubt is created in mind of Court.‑Private defence, right of.1983 S C M R 969
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB-Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: ---Ss. 302 & 304(I)-Private defence, right of-Accused, 16 years, defending himself from sexual assault made on him by deceased of 35 years-Right of private defence, held, accrued to accused-Accused inflicting 28 incised injuries, held, exceeded right of self-defence- Conviction altered from S. 302 to S. 304(1), P. P. C.-Accused already in jail for about 10 years, sentence reduced to already under gone in circumstances of case.-Private defence, right of-Sentence.1983 S C M R 796
REHMAT ALI-Petitioner Versus THS STATE-Respondent
Court: --S. 304, Part I read with S. 99-Culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Private defence, right of-Evidence showing that accused bad not acted within limits of -right of self-defence of person an property-No reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to accused existing nor any need to deal numerous Kassi blows causing bead injuries to deceased which proved fatal-Finding of courts below holding that accused had exceeded his right of self-defence upheld and conviction and sentence maintained.-Private defence, right of.1976 P Cr
DR. MAQBOOL AHMAD JAUHAR Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1983 S C M R 621
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: ---Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 304/99 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417-Murder-Acquittal Appeal from-Private defence, right of-Statement of acquitted accused himself showing that he far-exceeded right of private defence-Leave to appeal-Granted for further consideration of judgment passed in case acquitting accused.-Private defence, right of-Appeal against acquittal.1984 P Cr
DIN MUHAMMAD-Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: Lahore1976 S C M R 179
NAZIR AHMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: -----S. 302 read with S. 100‑Murder case‑‑Private defence, right of‑Trial Court finding plea of self‑defence established on ground that prosecution witnesses having admitted that deceased armed with sickle rushed forward to accused appellant to stop him from ploughing common boundary wall, deceased assumed threatening posture and given rise to genuine apprehension in accused appellants mind that deceased was going to attack with sickle‑Held. : Sickle ‑ Not ordinarily a weapon of offence ‑Deceased being engaged in cutting fodder, sickle not held for attacking accused appellant‑Injuries on deceased having been inflicted after wresting of sickle by accused from deceased, not eve's a scratch caused to accused, and deceased having suffered 6 injuries (4 being lacerated wounds on skull fracturing brain matter), trial Judge's conclusion perverse and perfectly straight forward evidence twisted to support a conclusion utterly lacking in imagination.‑Private defence, right of.1982 S C M R 1239
GULLAN AND OTHERS‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: ---S. 164‑Confession, nature of-Confession recorded soon after arrest of confessing accused on same day earlier in morning between 9 and 11 a.m.‑Recording Magistrate found to have satisfied himself with regard to voluntariness of statement and same being free from taint‑Magistrate also assured of accused having had no marks of violance on his person nor put under threat or duress of any nature Having been recorded so soon after occurrence and taken by all authorities and Courts to be free from any taint, and as voluntary and true, and exhibiting no ‑detracting features, statement accepted as voluntary.‑Confession.1983SCMR 648
FAZAL DIN AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: -- Ss. 304 (I), 324 & 148-Private defence, right of-Occurrence a free fight-Complainant party beaten mercilessly and one of them died-Accused party suffering slight injuries which too found by medical report to be self-inflicted-Petitioners, held, has no right of private defence in circumstances. -Private defence, right of.