An offence under section 302 (c) PPC will be attracted only in those cases, where exceptions to old provision of section 300 PPC stand attracted.
So bringing the case under the above exception (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). It is required to be established that the case was one of sudden fight, taken place without any premeditation in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and offender had not taken any undue advantage and must had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
The new section 302 itself divides qatl-i-amd for the purpose of punishment into three categories i.e.
a) qatl-i-amd, punished with death as qisas;
b) qatl-i-amd, punished with death or imprisonment for life as ta’zir
c) qatl-i-amd, punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to twenty-five years, where according to the injunctions of Islam the punishment of qisas is not applicable.
Evidence of both the witnesses clearly indicate that the deceased went to the workshop of appellant, for repair of tractor, for the first time and in the absence of any previous ill will or grudge, at the spur of the moment due to “lain dain” probably regarding the payment of work done, by the appellant by repairing the tractor, suddenly there was altercation, followed by exchange of abusive language between the appellant and deceased, all of a sudden this occurrence took place indicating that there was no premeditation and at the spur of the moment due to abusive language, in the heat passion, appellant gave a solitary blow with the hatched which was lying there. He did not repeat the blow although deceased was lying on his mercy. He did not take undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner. So all the ingredients of above exception are born out from the prosecution cases and his case falls under section 302 (c) PPC. All the parameters mentioned above clearly indicate that it is a case falling under section 302 (c) PPC and not section 302 (b) PPC. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant have different facts and in these cases the ingredient of Exception 4 of section 300 (old) PPC were not born out.
Crl.A.506/2020
Muhammad Ajmal v. The State
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood
07-10-2021
0 Comments