P L D 2020 Supreme Court 419
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-F(iii)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah---Re-appraisal of evidence---Three injured persons testified against the accused and all of them consistently maintained that they were fired on by the accused and that the accused had also fired on the deceased and killed him---Prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions of the accused were justified---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
---S. 324---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Firearm injury---Blackening of wound---Doctor giving his opinion regarding the distance from which a fire from a shotgun would leave blackening of wound---Held, that a medical doctor could, of course, state whether there was blackening on a wound but may not be qualified to determine the distance from which the fire was made, which came within the expertise of a firearm forensic expert, who may consider a number of factors, including the type of firearm and cartridge that had been used---Prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions of the accused were justified---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-F(iii)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah---Re-appraisal of evidence---Crime empties---Plea of accused that prosecution's case was that accused made four fire shots with his shotgun, which did not tally with the number of spent cartridges (three) recovered from the crime scene---Held, that a single barrel shotgun was used by the accused and it was of the kind that did not eject fired and spent cartridges---Since the crime weapon was a single barrel shotgun it meant that after the petitioner fired once he would have to reload it to fire again and to repeat this action---In such circumstances last fired cartridge would be left in the barrel and not ejected and left at the crime scene for subsequent retrieval---Prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions of the accused were justified---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-F(iii)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah---Re-appraisal of evidence---Motive---Domestic dispute---High Court reduced sentence of death to imprisonment for life on the basis that motive set forth by the prosecution, that there had been an altercation amongst the members of the family, was not established, because there was no independent witness to testify to this---Held, that said reason was not a sufficient reason to discard the motive, as it was rare that a domestic dispute would be witnessed by outsiders---To say that because there was no outsider to testify, therefore, the motive was not established was not the correct approach---Prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions of the accused were justified---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b)& 302(c)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Grave and sudden provocation [Exception 1 to the erstwhile S.300, P.P.C.]---If for the sake of argument it was accepted that the accused had been deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, then by going to fetch his shotgun he broke or dissipated the purported loss of the power of self-control---Moreover, loss of self-control may at best account for the first fire made by the accused, but, then the accused opened the shotgun, removed the spent cartridge, took out a loaded cartridge, inserted it in the barrel, aimed and fired, and repeated this action thrice---To attract Exception 1 to the erstwhile S.300, P.P.C. there must also be some evidence of what had happened that caused sudden provocation---In the present case, there was none---In any event there was nothing on record of the present case to suggest that the accused had been suddenly provoked, therefore, Exception 1 of the erstwhile S.300, P.P.C. was not attracted to the facts of the present case---Prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions of the accused were justified---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Causing death 'without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner [Exception 4 to the erstwhile S.300, P.P.C.]---In the present case, there was no evidence of a sudden fight, let alone in the heat of passion---Accused armed himself with a shotgun against unarmed persons, which in itself constituted undue advantage and excluded his case from the purview of the [Exception 4 to the erstwhile S.300, P.P.C.]---Accused also acted in the most cruel manner which was yet another factor that made him ineligible for the benefit of Exception 4---After the altercation accused went to fetch a shotgun, loaded it and fired it; he then reloaded and re-fired it thrice more, which demonstrated extreme cruelty and brutality---No factual basis was found to bring the case of accused under S.302(c), P.P.C.---Prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions of the accused were justified---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused
0 Comments