Sudden Fight

2013 SCMR 378 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b)/324/337-F(iii)Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimahReappraisal of evidenceSentence, reduction inSudden fightNon-repetition of fireMotive not fully establishedEffectAccused and co-accused allegedly killed the deceased and caused injuries to a witness during a sudden fight

Motive for the alleged occurrence was that accused and co-accused held a grudge due to a divorce obtained by their aunt, who was sister of deceased and mother of injured witness

Trial Court sentenced accused to undergo life imprisonment, while co-accused was sentenced to death

Validity

All prosecution witnesses and complainant were unanimous in narrating the occurrence and in nominating accused and co-accused for having fired at the deceased and for injuring the injured witness

Ocular account fully corroborated medical evidence on record

Witnesses remained steadfast during their cross-examination and no response could be elicited from them which could help the defence in any manner whatsoever

Although alleged motive for the occurrence was animus nursed by accused and co-accused due to the divorce obtained by their aunt, however strangely upon arriving at the scene of occurrence, they allegedly enquired about their aunt's son i.e. injured witness, rather than directing their anger at their aunt and her new husband, who were admittedly present at that time

Death of deceased and injuries caused to the injured witness were a result of sudden fight

Accused and co-accused did not repeat their fire shots despite the fact that injured witness and others were at their complete mercy

Appeal was allowed, death sentence of co-accused was converted to life imprisonment

Life imprisonment of accused was set aside, and only sentences of five years and three years, awarded to him under Ss.324 and 337-F(iii), P.P.C. respectively, were maintained.

1987 SCMR 2013 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 304, Part II & 307 read with S. 34Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)Sudden fight

Trial Court and Appellate Court correctly arriving at conclusion that it was sudden fight which had commenced due to the child having been taken away by complainant side

High Court, held, had rightly exercised its discretion in modifying sentences imprisonment to that which the convicts had already undergone and such exercise of discretion did not call for interference

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

1985 SCMR 629 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302/34 & 307/34Sudden fightMurderCommon object-Reappraisal of evidence

Failure of prosecution witnesses to account for some of injuries and of defence to give a satisfactory explanation making case a typical case of a sudden fight involving both parties-Where in case of a sudden fight both groups were armed with fire-arms and used them, question of self-defence, held, would be academic and would not arise

Criminal responsibility of those involved would be individual and there would be no question of a common intention or a common object being pursued.

[Private defence, right of

Common object

Common intention]

1985 SCMR 1766 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 300, Exception 4 304, Part ISudden fight

Sudden fight between two sides in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel relating to return of wife and daughter of accused

Exchange of abuses between accused and deceased

No premeditation

Accused to start with had no intention to assault deceased

Accused faced with three adult male members of a family who were all quarrelling and fighting with him

Two of such persons had already used force against accused when he pulled out knife

Held, it would not make much difference as to who actually grappled with accused

Accused, therefore, could neither be said that he had taken undue advantage by inflicting a solitary blow on person who had grappled with him nor that he would not be entitled to right of private defence, although he might have exceeded such right

1983 SCMR 219 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 300, Exception IV-Culpable homicide-Sudden fight-Facts glanced from record showing case to be one of sudden fight where some of accused also sustained injuries-Sentence of death, held, not called for-Appeal accepted to extent of alteration of death sentence into life imprisonment and award of benefit of period of detention in jail-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).

1983 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 392 & 300, Exception Iv-Murder-Sudden fight-Mitigation of offence-No evidence to show accused having known of deceased having to pass in front of their khokha-No preplanning for offence Appellant's being armed with a rifle belonging to his father only confirming his own statement of being in habit of collecting Jagga tax and habitually carrying rifle for such purpose - Possibility existing of something having been said or done by either party leading to a scuffle and appellant having in heat of moment fired a shot on deceased when his brother (acquitted accused) in a helpless state Appellant though in circumstances could not have right of private defence nor all conditions contained in Exception 1 v to S. 300, P. P. C. satisfied, yet flare up being sudden and involvement of acquitted accused having remained shrouded in mystery, case, held, fit for award of lesser of two penalties-

1983 SCMR 100 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 300, Exception IV read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)-Sudden fight-Leave granted to examine whether High Court justified in straightway considering case to be one of aggression by one party and of self-defnce by other without examining evidence on record suggesting case to be one of sudden fight.

1981 SCMR 642 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302/34 read with S. 300, Exception IV-[Murder-case]-Sudden fight-Principal accused's head oozing blood even 3 ½ hours after incident, his shirt collar blood-stained and torn from front side-No explanation given by opposite-party as, to how such accused came -to receive such injury caused- by a danda blow-Facts, held, showed struggling and grappling having taken place between parties Injury undeniably inflicted by accused in course of a sudden fight without any premeditation when parties, having ill-will froze before, came face to face by chance-High Court, in circumstances, held, justified in extending benefit of Exception D' to S. 300, P. P. C. to accused-Injury having been caused in a sudden free fight, every participant, held, liable only for his own act and both accused could not be held to have shared a common intention.-[Common intention].

1981 SCMR 1248 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

- S. 304 (I)-Sudden fight-Parties suddenly deciding on day of incident to go to cattle fair and respondent's intention and plans to ambush deceased on his way not established-Road passing to cattle fair frequented by those proceeding to fair and trees at place of incident not found offering any shelter to assailant-Respondent not escaping from rl place of incident and no premeditation and preplanning established Conviction under S. 304 (1), P. P. C., held, rightly recorded, in circumstances.

1965 PLD 403 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302 & 300, Exception 4Sudden fight-Accused continuing dealing blows with knife even after deceased lay prostrate on ground-Exception 4 to S. 300 not applicable-Accused, held, guilty under S. 302.