2022 S C M R 18
MUHAMMAD AKRAM
Versus
The STATE
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-D & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Murder of wife committed under the impulse of 'ghairat'---As per the crime report accused shot and murdered his wife, while she was being taken to court in a police vehicle, and during the incident a police constable also received firearm injury---Question as to whether provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were attracted---Held, that the accused had committed the crime due to a very specific reason; it was nowhere mentioned that he was a person of desperate character having any previous antecedents of criminal activities, rather the offence was committed under the impulses of 'ghairat'---Possibility could not be ruled out that the accused could not afford the insult incurred because of the act of his wife and he had lost control and under the impulses of disgrace and humiliation he opted to commit the crime---Injury caused to the police personnel was not due to direct conflict with the law enforcing agencies, rather as wife of accused was in custody of the police constable the injury caused to the constable could be result of misdirected shot due to heat of passion---Even otherwise the trial Court had convicted the accused under Ss. 337-D & 324, P.P.C. for causing injury on the person of the police personnel and the said injured had also affected a compromise with the accused and had forgiven him and also waived his right to collect Arsh---Provisions of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were not attracted in the present case, therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded under S. 7 of the said Act was set aside---Furthermore when the parties had compromised the offence under Ss. 302(b), 337-D & 324, P.P.C. the only punishment left for the accused was under S. 353, P.P.C., which was not compoundable---However, since the accused had already undergone the period of his sentence of 2 years imprisonment, Supreme Court gave directions for his release, and acquitted him of the charge of murder and causing injury on the person of the police constable --- Jail petition was converted into appeal and partly allowed accordingly.
(b) Criminal trial---
----Diminished responsibility, doctrine of---Applicability---Said doctrine absolved an accused person of part of the liability for his criminal act if he suffered from such abnormality of mind as to substantially impair his responsibility in committing or being a party to an alleged violation, which was committed due to love and affection and injury to reputation---Doctrine of diminished responsibility provided a mitigating defence in cases in which the mental disease or defect was not of such magnitude as to exclude criminal responsibility altogether---Said doctrine was most frequently asserted in connection with murder cases requiring proof of a particular mental state on the part of the accused.
0 Comments