Updated: Tuesday November 03, 2015/AthThulatha Muharram 21, 1437/Mangalavara Karthika 12, 1937, at 06:50:51 PM

 

Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)

Act XLV of 1860

October 6th, 1860

Amended by: Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2012 (XXIII of 2002),Criminal Law (Third Amendment) Act, 2011 (XXVI of 2011),Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 2011 (XXV of 2011),Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2011 (XX of 2011),Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2010 (I of 2010),Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006,Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004 (I of 2005),Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance (LXXXV of 2002),Criminal Laws (Reforms) Ordinance (LXXXVI of 2002),etc.


Whereas it is expedient to provide a general Penal Code for Pakistan:

Court Decesions

Preamble—Pakistan Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code are statutes which complement and supplement each other in most respects and are generally perceived as counterparts in system of criminal justice in Pakistan. 2002 Lawvision 107 = PLD 2002 Lahore 482

It is enacted as follows:-


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.

Title and extent of operation of the Code.

This Act shall be called the Pakistan Penal Code, and shall take effect throughout Pakistan.

 

2.

Punishment of offences committed within Pakistan.

Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within Pakistan.

 

Court Decisions

 

Private individuals not entitled to inflict punishment on supposed offender. A number of people proceeded to punish a man and a woman supposed to be keeping a brothel and otherwise leading an immoral life, by blackening their faces and parading them in a procession in streets with their hands tied, the man being completely stripped of clothing- and the woman deprived of her dopatta. Held.-Under -no law much less the Islamic Law a person has got a right to inflict punishment on a person supposed to have committed any offence or moral wrong. Even if they were leading an immoral life, nobody had a right to inflict any punishment on them much less the punish­ment of stripping them of their clothes and blackening their, faces. Under the law of the land as well as under the Islamic Law general disrepute would not entitle anybody to punish the persons complained against. That those who' took the law into their own hands were led to do so by the instigation of religious leaders was no reason for dealing leniently with them. The offence warranted deterrent punishment. P. L. D. 1991 Pesh. 6

Taking law into own hands:- Accused forming un­lawful assembly and entering cafes, etc., forcibly to prevent Profile from eating and drinking during Ramazan-Offence under S. 452, P. P. C. - Accused's action whether justified by Hadis Or Quran. Where some people who were definitely more than five in number, formed an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence by entering into hotels and restaurants after arming themselves with, sticks and thus having made preparation for causing hurt to the persons who were not observing fast and where the defence pleaded Hadis in justification of the accused's action.  Held that the conviction of accused under section 452, Pakistan Penal Code was well founded. Nowhere in the Holy Quran has anybody been permitted to take law into his own hands and start first judging a person whether he has done a certain wrong or not, and then inflicting the sentence at once No one in Islamic Society has got a right to take the law into his own hands, because if everybody is permitted to become himself the judge and then inflict the sentence at the spot, there would be chaos in society. P.L.D 1990 Pesh. 39

 

3.

Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within Pakistan.
Any person liable, by any Pakistan Law, to be tried for an offence committed beyond Pakistan shall be dealt with according to the provision of this Code for any act committed beyond Pakistan in the same manner as if such act had been committed within Pakistan.

 

4.

Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences.
The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by:-

 1[(1)

any citizen of Pakistan or any person in the service of Pakistan in any place without and beyond Pakistan;] 1

 2[] 2 4[] 4

(4)

any person on any ship or aircraft registered in Pakistan wherever it may be.

Explanation: In this section the word “offence” includes every act committed outside Pakistan which, if committed in Pakistan, would be punishable under this Code.

 

Illustrations

(a)

A, a Pakistan subject, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in Pakistan in which he may be found.

 

 5[] 5

 6[(c)

C, a foreigner who is in the service of Pakistan commits a murder in London. He can be tried and convicted of murder at any place in Pakistan in which he may be found.] 6

 

 

(d)

D, a British subject living in Junagadh, instigates E to commit a murder in Lahore. D is guilty of abetting murder.

 

 

 7[

5.

Certain laws not to be affected by this Act.
Nothing in this Act is intended to repeal, vary, suspend or affect any of the provisions of any Act for punishing mutiny and desertion of officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen in the service of the State or of any special or local law.

 

] 7


CHAPTER II

GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

6.

Definitions in the code to be understood subject to exceptions.
Throughout this Code every definition of an offence, every penal provision and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the chapter entitled “General Exceptions,” though those exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision or illustration.

Illustrations

(a)

The sections in this Code, which contains definitions of offences, do not express that a child under seven years of age cannot commit such offences; but the definitions are to be understood subject to the general exception which provides that nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

 

(b)

A, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Z who has committed murder. Here A is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement; for he was bound by law to apprehend Z, and, therefore, the case falls within the general exception which provides that “nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.”

 

Court Decisions

Mistake of fact:- Mistake of fact can be a defence if the same is in good faith. 1990 P.Cr.L.J. 196 

 

7.

Sense of expression once explained.
Every expression which is explained in any part of this Code is used in every part of this Code in conformity with the explanation.

 

8.

Gender.
The pronoun “he” and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female.

 

9.

Number.
Unless the contrary appears from the context, words importing the singlular number include the plural number, and words importing the plural number include the singular number.

 

10.

“Man”, “Woman”.
The word “man” denotes a male human being of any age; the word “woman” denotes a female human being of any age.

 

Court Decisions

 

Every person:- comprehends all persons without limitation and irrespective of nationality, allegiance, rank, status, caste, colour or creed . PLD 958 S.C. (Ind.) 115.

Under no law a person has a right to inflict punishment on a person supposed to have committed an offence or moral wrong even under the Islamic Law general disrepute would not entitle any body to punish the person complained against. PLD 1951 Pesh. 6. 

11.

“Person”.
The word “person” includes any Company or Association, or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.

 

Court Decisions

 

“Person” Bank-Included in the definition. 1989 P.Cr.L.J. 131.

Corporate body: A corporate body is a juristic person. It ought to be indictable for criminal act or omissions of its directors, or authorized agents or servants, whether they involve mens rea or not, provided they have acted or have purported to act under authority of the corporate body or in pursuance of the aims or objects of the corporate body. 1971 P.Cr.L.J. 537.

12.

“Public”.
The word “public” includes any class of the public or any community.

 

 8[] 8

14.

“Servant of the State”.
The words “servant of the State” denote all officers or servants continued, appointed or employed in Pakistan, by or under the authority of the Federal Government or any Provincial Government.

 

 9[] 9

17.

“Government”
The word “Government” denotes the person or persons authorized by law to administer executive Government in Pakistan, or in any part thereof.

 

 10[] 10

19.

“Judge”.
The word “Judge” denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person--

 

who is empowered by law to give, in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, a definitive judgment or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive, or

 

who is one of a body of persons, which body of persons is empowered by law to give such Judgment.

 

Illustrations

 11[] 11

(b)

A Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in respect of a charge on which he has power to sentence to fine or imprisonment with or without appeal, is a Judge.

 

 12[] 12 13[] 13

 

Court Decisions

'Judge' and 'Court': The terms 'Judge' and 'Court' are often used interchangeably as synonymous. Generally speaking a Judge is properly identified with the Court, in relation to something done in exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court. Otherwise his personality remains distinct and separate from the Court. As individual, he remains subject to the laws of the land like the rest of the citizenry, save when expressly exempted. PLD 1976 S.C. 315. 

20.

“Court of Justice”.
The words “Court of Justice” denote a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially.  14[] 14

 

21.

“Public servant”.
The words “public servant” denotes a person falling under any of the descriptions herein after following, namely:-  15[] 15

Second:

Every Commissioned Officer in the Military, Naval or Air Forces of Pakistan while serving under the Federal Government or any Provincial Government;

Third:

Every Judge;

Fourth:

Every officer of a Court of Justice whose duty it is, as such officer, to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate, or keep any document, or to take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial process, or to administer any oath, or to interpret, or to preserve order in the Court; and every person specially authorized by a Court of Justice to perform any of such duties;

Fifth:

Every juryman, assessor, or member of a panchayat assisting a Court of Justice or public servant;

Sixth:

Every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by any Court of Justice, or by any other competent public authority;

Seventh:

Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement;

Eighth:

Every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience;

Ninth:

Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government, or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government, or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report, or any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Government, and every officer in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty;

Tenth:

Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, to make any survey or assessment or to levy any rate or tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district, or to make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village, town or district;

Eleventh:

Every person who holds any office in virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an elections.

Illustration

A Municipal Commissioner is a public servant.

Explanation 1: Persons falling under any of the above descriptions are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not.

Explanation 2: Wherever the words “public servant” occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation.

Explanation 3: The word “election” denotes an election for the purpose of selecting members of any legislative, municipal or other public authority, of whatever character, the method of selection to which is by, or under, any law prescribed as by election.

 

Court Decisions

 

Public servant:- The words public servant denotes a person who holds any office in virtue of which he is empowered to do an act for or on behalf of the Government or a local agency. He must be holding some office or officium, humble or exalted, high or low in the sense that he must exercise to some extent a delegated function of the Government and he must be in this behalf either himself armed with some authority of a representative character, or his duties must be immediately auxiliary to those someone who is also armed. PLD 1962 Lah.144.

Person gratuitously performing a duty of the name mentioned in this clause would be a public servant. PLD 1958 Dacca 167. 

22.

Movable property.
The words “movable property” are intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and thing attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.

 

Court Decisions

Movable property:-- The definition includes 'corporal property' of every description, re. a property perceivable by the senses in contradiction of incorporeal rights which are not so perceivable. Immovable things becoming movable by service Would fall within this definition. Earth, that is a soil and all the component parts of the soil, including stores, sand and minerals etc., when severed from the earth or land to which attached would become movable. It would likewise apply to the machinery equipments fastened to the earth, roof or ceiling, when detached. 

23.

“Wrongful gain”, “Wrongful loss”, “Gaining Wrongfully”, “Losing Wrongfully”.

 

“Wrongful gain.

“Wrongful gain” is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.

 

 

 

“Wrongful loss”.

Wrongful loss” is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.

 

 

 

Gaining wrongfully, Losing wrongfully.

A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property.

 

 

 

Court Decisions

What is indicative of the expression 'wrongful gain' or 'wrongful loss' is the absence of legal right, i.e. causing such 'gain' or 'loss' by unlawful means. It covers whole or part of the 'gain' or 'loss'. It is not necessary that the loss or gain should be permanent, it may be temporary or for the time being. Taking out of the Army aircraft by the accused for an unauthorized flight gives him the temporary use of the aircraft. Such use being unauthorized and against all the regulations of air-flying is a gain or loss by unlawful means for the purpose of this section. PLD 1957 S.C.  317 

24.

“Dishonestly”.
Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.

 

Court Decisions

Dishonestly:- Person failing to protect interest of bank against effect of guarantee exposing the bank to serious risk of loss by secretive, stealthy and surreptitious execution and delivery of guarantee can be said to act dishonestly within the meaning of the section. 1987 P.Cr.L.J. 1096. Taking these two definitions together, a person can be said to have dishonest intention if in taking the property it is his intention to cause gain, by unlawful means, of the property to which the person so gaining is not legally entitled or to cause loss by wrongful means, of property to which the person so losing is legally entitled. It is further clear from the definition that the gain or loss contemplated need not be a total acquisition or a total deprivation but it is enough if it is a temporary retention of property by the person wrongfully gaining or a temporary 'keeping out' of property from the person legally entitled. PLD 1957 S.C. (Ind) 317

25.

“Fraudulently”.
A person is said to do ,a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.

 

Court Decisions

Defraud:- The expression 'defraud' involves two elements, namely deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something else than mere economic loss, that is deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. It is a non­-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived if there is an intention to defraud. AIR 1963 S.C. 1572

26.

“Reason to believe”.
A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.

 

27.

Property in possession of wife, clerk or servant.
When property is in the possession of a person’s wife, clerk or servant, on account of that person, it is in that person’s possession within the meaning of this Code.

Explanation: A person employed temporarily on a particular occasion in the capacity of a clerk, or servant, is a clerk or servant within the meaning of this section.

 

Court Decisions

Government:- Government property in possession of Government servant. Person deceived would be the Government. PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) .168.

28.

“Counterfeit”.
A person is said to “counterfeit” who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced.

Explanation 1: It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.

Explanation 2: When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended” by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practiced.

 

Court Decisions

Counterfeit:- A person is said to 'counterfeit' trade mark within the meaning of section 28 only when the two prerequisite conditions concur, namely (1) that the accused had caused "one thing to resemble another thing", both things must be either same or of similar description; and (2) that the accused had intended by that resemblance to practise deception or is saddled with the knowledge that while causing that resemblance it was likely that deception would thereby be occasioned. PLD 1969 Kar. 245.

29.

Document:
The word “document” denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.

Explanation 1 : It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance, the letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of Justice, or not.

 

Illustrations

A writing expressing the terms of a contract, which may be used as evidence of the contract, is a document.

A cheque upon a banker is a document.

A Power-of-Attorney is a document.

A map or plan which is intended to be used or which may be used as evidence, is a document.

A writing containing directions or instructions is a document.

Explanation 2: Whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letter, figure or marks within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed.

 

Illustrations

A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange payable to his order. The meaning of the endorsement, as explained by mercantile usage is that the bill is to be paid to the holder. The endorsement is a document and must be construed in the same manner as if >the words “pay to the holder” or words to that effect had been written over the signature.

 

Court Decisions

Document :-- Construction of document depends essentially upon the nature and its intended use. It is not necessary that it should be in every case in writing or contain the signatures or facsimile of any person. A false, forged, or fabricated document or a writing which is not a legal evidence, or document not properly executed or signed by all the intended parties, is yet a document if the parties framing it believe to be and intended to be evidence of such matter. A document must be construed as a whole. PLD 1973 S.C. 160. If not objected should be deemed to have been admitted. PLD 1967 S.C. 200. Question as to proper construction of a document is always question of law. PLD 1968 S.C. 140. Not admissible in evidence unless proved. PLD 1974 S.C. 204.

30.

“Valuable security”.
The words “valuable security denote a document which is, or purports to be a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby, any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not certain legal right.

Illustration

A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange. As the effect of this endorsement is to transfer the right to the bill to any person who may become the lawful holder of it, the endorsement is a “valuable security”.

 

31.

“A will”.
The words “a will” denote any testamentary document.

 

32.

Words referring to acts include illegal omissions.
In every part of this Code, except where contrary intention appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omission.

 

33.

“Act”, “Omission”.
The word “act” denotes as well a series of acts as a single act; the word “omission” denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission.

 

Court Decisions

Act:- The term 'act' according to section 33 denotes not only specific instance but connotes series of acts as well as series of illegal omissions. AIR 1939 Pat. 625

34.

Acts done by several persons In furtherance of common intention.
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

 

Court Decisions

 

Last seen evidence--Credibility--"S" deceased had disappeared on 19.12.2000 and his dead-body was subsequently found in sugarcane field on 21.12.2000 and during intervening two days his disappearance had not been reported to police by any body till recovery of his dead-body--Admittedly murder alleged in this case had remained unwitnessed and prosecution had failed to fix any date, time or place of said murder--Deadbody of "S" deceased was received from sugarcane field which was neither owned nor possessed by appellants and said recovery had not been affected at pointing out of appellants--Nobody had appeared before Police or before trial Court to maintain that he had seen appellants throwing dead-body at the place from where it was recovered--In absence of any direct evidence incriminating appellants, prosecution had relied only upon last seen evidence, recoveries and medical evidence to establish charge against appellants, but each one of these pieces of evidence to be utterly unreliable to establish alleged guilt of appellants--Alleged recovery of car driven by "S" deceased had, according to prosecutions, own showing, come out upon joint disclosure and pointing out of appellants and such joint recovery, it is settled law, is of little evidentiary value--Apart from that said recovery had been witnessed by PW-2 who lived about hundred miles away from place of such recovery and no person from locality in question had been associated with that recovery despite availability--Alleged recovery of blood-stained Chadar belonging to "S" deceased from possession of appellant has also failed to inspire confidence--Witnesses produced by prosecution in respect of last seen evidence had never claimed that deceased was carrying any Chadar with him when he had statedly left with appellants--Held: Prosecution had failed to prove its case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt--Appeal allowed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 427

Omission by P.Ws. to mention in their S. 161, Cr.P.C. statement causing of injuries by accused to deceased would be irrelevant in a case where occurrence had taken place suddenly in which at least 8 persons had participated in the fight--Evidence in such like cases is not to be appreciated on touchstone of mathematical exactitude--Accused in a case of open fight without any premeditation would not deserve award of extreme penalty of death--Conviction U/S. 302/34 upheld but death sentence awarded to convict reduced by Supreme Court to life imprisonment with benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. PLJ 2000 SC 362

 

S. 34 P.P.C. alongwith the charging Section does not make Section 34 inapplicable if otherwise the charge against accused disclosed a case of application of the said Section. PSC 1991 SC (Pak)29

 

            Offences Against Property (EOH) Ordinance, 1979-- FIR lodged promptly and medical evidence fully supported it--Witnesses made cogent and unbiased statements and they appeared to be trust worthy--Recovery of pistol at instance of G appellant was witnessed by P.W. 8 who was not related to deceased or complainants--According to report of F. both empties were found to have been fired from pistol recovered from G. appellant--Prosecution has been able to prove case against G appellant beyond any reasonable shadows of doubt, hence, his appeal dismissed--Any how inculpability of S in occurrence does not appear to be beyond reasonable doubts, therefore, appeal filed by him was allowed--Orders accordingly. PLJ 1998 FSC 79

 

Out of 8 accused one acquitted and 3 sentenced to death--Charges against all three proved at the hilt--Ocular account in that respect is corroborated by recovery, medical evidence and report of Forensic Science Laboratory–lt is proved on record that, accused/appellant were armed with deadly weapons trespassed with the house to commit qatl-i-amd of two deceased persons and also attempted to commit robbery--They displayed lethal weapons and indulged in indiscriminate firing which caused harassment and terror in the locality and thereby they are clearly guilty of an act of terrorism i.e. of the offence U/S 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997--There is not sufficient evidence on record to prove charge of abetment against any of remaining 4 accused so they are entitled to acquittal--Order accordingly PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 435

 

                 Sectarian Killings-- Time and place of occurrence have not been challenged by appellants--It has also not been questioned that injuries had been caused by assailants with weapons which were alleged in FIR and in statements made by eye-witnesses--Occurrence had taken place in broad daylight and FIR in respect of incident in question had been lodged with sufficient promptitude wherein names of both appellants had been duly mentioned with all necessary details vis-a-viz role played by them during occurrence--Complainant (PW-5) is admittedly not related either to deceased or to injured persons--His presence at place of occurrence was quite natural inasmuch as his status of being Mutwalli of Insane Bargah in question had never been contested by defence--Complainant was quite candid in his statement made before learned trial Court by maintaining that he did not himself see or hear said abettors conspiring but that he was told about same by others--This showed that complainant was not interested in spreading net wide so as to satisfy any private or other vendetta and that he was God-fearing enough not to implicate anybody positively against whom he was not sure himself--Even assertion regarding animosity between complainant and appellants goes a long way in suggesting that appellants could not seriously maintain that complainant did not know them personally--Complainant had made a straightforward statement before learned trial Court and defence had remained unable to shake his credibility during cross-examination--(PW-6) had also provided ocular account of occurrence--He is also not related to any of deceased or to injured persons--He had also categorically and emphatically named present appellants to be actual perpetrators of said offences--(PW-6) is a public servant and no direct motive had been attributed to him so as to falsely implicate appellants in a case of this nature--He too had made a forth right statement before learned trial Court which had not been shaken during his cross-examination--However, while advancing said argument learned counsel for appellants has overlooked stark fact that all said injured witnesses did not belong to vicinity where bloodbath had taken place--Addresses of injured witnesses manifest that they resided at places which were far off and some even in different Districts and reason for their presence at place of occurrence was only to attend annual Majlis at Imam Bargah in question which surely was a big occasion as admittedly thousands of people from various parts of region were attending same--Even if these injured witnesses are taken out of consideration vis-a-vis implication of appellants they surely establish relevant factors and corroborate complainant and other two eye-witnesses in respect of those factors--Claim of these two witnesses that nobody else know about real culprits at relevant time is belied by fact that FIR had been lodged with sufficient promptness and both appellants were duly nominated therein to be culprits--Plea of alibi taken by appellants as said plea was itself an afterthought and same did not find support from any independent evidence, material or circumstance--High Court has also noticed that while recording appellant's convictions and sentences under Sectio.n 324, PPC read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 learned trial Court had failed to pass any order regarding payment of compensation to injured victims under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C.--It is, therefore, ordered that half of fine, if recovered, under above-mentioned convictions and sentences of appellants under Section 324, PPC read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 shall be paid to respective injured victims by way of compensation--Sentences of imprisonment passed against appellants shall run consecutively as no circumstance warranting a lenient view of matter so as to order running of said sentences concurrently. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 84

 

A case of double Murder: - Not to apply Ss. 34, 107 & 149 PPC. PLD 1988 S.C.  86.

Accused closely related. 1987 P.Cr.L.J. 1958.

 

Accused present but not trying to prevent co-accused from committing crime. Both covered by S. 34. PLD 1983 S.C. 35.

 

Appreciation of evidence--PW has satisfactorily explained his presence at place of , occurrence--It was broad-day light occurrence which could not go unwitnessed--Accused inflicted large number of injuries mercilessly both from sharp as well as blunt side of hatchets--One accused was present in his army unit in the year of occurrence, therefore, his acquittal is upheld in light of plea of alibi raised by him--Another accused who had been specifically assigned specific injury which finds full support from medical evidence--Participation of this accused with specific attribution of opening attack and infliction of injury cannot be ignored--This accused was present at the place of occurrence and was on leave on relevant date--Plea of alibi rejected--Acquittal is converted into life imprisonment--Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. extended. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 684

 

            Acquittal--Connotation--Acquittal is acquittal whether it is on basis of a declaration by a Court on conclusion of trial that some one is not guilty of charge or at any stage under Ss. 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C. or on basis of compromise under S. 345 Cr.P.C. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1169

 

Element of terrorism object of Act--Classification of cases triable by Anti-Terrorism Courts--Scope--Reasoning of trial Court that case is triable by it because deceased Patwari was killed at time when he was on duty, although same is also not free from doubt, cannot be adopted and does not appeal, as it would mean that when public servant is killed while on duty, case is triable by Anti-Terrorism Court and when he is killed during off duty hours it is not triable by it--Act does not create any such classification--Same does not involve element of terrorism and has no nexus with object of Act and offences mentioned in Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Act, as it is simple case of murder due to previous enmity and it cannot be said that same was committed in manner which struck terror or created sense of fear and insecurity in people or in Section of people except ordinary in sense of in security which is created at time of commission of every crime--Held : Anti-Terrorism Court has no jurisdiction to try case. PLJ 2001 Lahore 547

 

            Murder of five persons-- There was a mention of 13 unknown culprits in F.I.R. but five accused had specifically named in it--Intact it was a massacre--One injured in his statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. who did later on and his statement was regarded as dying declaration which was duly corroborated by statements of the three PWs--Prosecution set a motive and proved the same—Criminal Conspiracy not proved against all accused--It was established on record that four accused had formed an unlawful assembly alongwith their co-accused since absconding and had committed offence of rioting--It was also established on record that they had criminally trespassed into house/dera of deceased and at night and had caused qatl-i-Amd of deceased persons--Dying declaration of one injured in the incident was fully corroborated by statement of eye-witnesses--Three eye-witnesses-- were not injured during course of occurrence it cannot be assumed that accused had attempted to commit qatl-i-Amd of them--Accussed had committed a heinous and terrible offence by firing indiscriminately and killed with others a sitting MNA from the area--Accused had thus created panic and terror in the area and as such they were rightly convicted and sentenced u/S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997--Prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against six accused, therefore they rightly acquitted by learned trail Judge--Case against remaining four accused is proved and murder Reference to the extent of remaining appellants is answered in affirmative. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 898

 

Appeal against acquittal – Accused had neither sanctioned the advance nor they were beneficiary of the money advanced by the Chairman of the Establishment to the co-accused—NAB Authorities had withdrawn the case against he said absconding co-accused and secured his discharge without even asking him to surrender before the Accountability Court which was a matter of great favour to him—If such magnanimity could be shown to an accused person who was the actual beneficiary of the alleged corrupt practices and was fugitive at law having remained absconder till conclusion of the case, there could not be any earthly reason for denying the benefit of acquittal to the accused who had at the most complied with the orders of their superior without any allegation whatsoever of deriving any monetary benefit—Order of acquittal recorded by the Accountability Court was in consonance with the principles of justice and did not suffer from any illegality or miscarriage of justice and warranted no interference—In the interest of good governance the officials performing their acts in good faith should be protected otherwise they would be reluctant to take decision and/or avoid or prolong the same on one pretext or the other which would ultimately lead to paralysis of State-machinery and such a course cannot be countenanced by the Supreme Court—Such officials have to be protected where there was no direct evidence of any corrupt motive or of any illegal gain—Prosecution in the present case had no evidence direct or indirect to establish any personal gain on the part of the accused – Appeal against acquittal of accused at the instance of National Accountability Bureau was dismissed in limine in circumstances. PLD 2003 Kar. 122

 

Proof of motive:- Appellant was caught at spot and rifle used in crime was secured and empty recovered also matched with use of rifle--Mere fact that Trial Court held that motive as alleged was weak when there has been reliable, satisfactory and unimpeachable ocular evidence connecting appellant with commission of crime, corroborated by strong evidence that appellant was caught at spot along with rifle used by him and empty having matched with rifle used, same would not be a mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser punishment other than normal capital sentence of death--At odd hours of night, for purpose of settlement, appellant cannot be expected to carry a rifle to house of complainant--Mere fact that prosecution has not stated about injuries on person of appellant/accused would not itself be sufficient ground for awarding lesser punishment, which might not have been noticed at time, in view of fatal incident having taken place in family, by complainant or by witnesses--Injuries might have been caused upon person of appellant after he had committed crime by persons present there or by police when police was called at spot--It may also be observed that people generally do not admit to have inflicted injuries to accused persons--It may also be observed that allegations and proof of motive are not legal requirements for awarding maximum penalty of death in murder case when prosecution has proved guilt of appellant accused beyond reasonable doubt--In dispensation of criminal justice, decision of case must not be taken in relation to accused's case "but must rest on examination of entire evidence. PLJ 2001 SC 568

 

Appraisal of evidence—Sentence, enhancement of—Both the Courts below had failed to record reasons for awarding lesser punishment to the accused who had committed preplanned triple murder in a very brutal and gruesome manner and buried the dead bodies in the houses where they were killed—Occurrence was not known to any body till the time it was disclosed by the accused in the confessional statements—Dead bodies had been recovered at the instance of accused from the places specified in their confessions in presence of the Magistrates—Accused had recorded their detailed confessions disclosing various facts which were only known to them and the details of which had established their voluntariness and truthfulness—Confessions of accused were corroborated by the recovery of the-dead bodies, medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence-Accused had committed the preplanned calculated murders in a highly brutal and callous manner and no mitigating or extenuating circumstances existed warranting lesser penalty to them—Sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to each accused was consequently altered to death on three counts-Appeals were accepted  accordingly, Mosaddi Rai v. Emperor AIR 1933 Pat. 100; Abdus Sattar v. Muhammad Anwar PLD 1974 SC 266; Nabu v. The State PLD 1975 SC 478; Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Javed PLD 1976 SC 452; Bakhshish Elahi v. The State 1977 SCMR 389; Jetharam v. Weram 1986 SCMR 1056; Maqbool Ahmad v. The State 1987 SCMR 1059; Muhammad Sharif v. The State 1991 SCMR 1622; Noor Muhammad v. The State 1999 SCMR 2722; Muhammad Afzal v. Ghulam Asghar and others PLD 2000 SC 12; Habibullah v. The State 1971 SCMR 341; Abdul Majid v. The State 1980 SCMR 935; Sheri Zaman v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1526; Wazir Khan v, The State 1989 SCMR 446; Muhammad Gul v. The State 1991 SCMR 942; Arabistan v. The State 1992 SCMR 754; Javaid Masih v. The State 1993 SCMR 1574; Muhammad Ismail v. The State 1995 SCMR 1615; Mst. Naseem Akhtar v. The State 1999 SCMR 1744; Fazal Mahmood v. The State 1999 SCMR 2040; Nasar Khan v. The State 2000 SCMR 130 and Nasreen Akhtar v. The State 2000 SCMR 1634 ref. 2001 Lawvision 147 = 2001 SCMR 988 Appellants convicted & sentenced to Death by Addl. Sessions Judge--Appeals and Murder Reference consolidated--Ocular and chance witnesses real sons of deceased and their chance presence at place of occurrence unaccounted for--Statements of closely related chance witnesses are seldom relied upon in a case involving capital charge unless such witnesses inspire confidence by furnishing plausible explanation for their presence at a place where they were not ordinarily expected to be present at a given time--Prosecution witnesses produced were inimical to appellants admittedly--Eye-witnesses names were not mentioned in rough-site plan prepared soon after occurrence by I.O., and they were found to make improvements in their testimony--Corroborative value of alleged recoveries of a sum and pistol from appellants were not mentioned in both rough and formal site plan--Medical evidence contradicted ocular account--No account given as to why post-mortem was conducted on following day than the day of occurrence--During post-mortem only pellets were recovered from dead-body, hence play of pistol is ruled out--Level and direction of fire stated by ocular and medical account also do not match--Held: Benefit of doubt given to appellants who are acquitted of charge against them. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 892 Confessional statement even if retracted subsequently but found to be voluntary and true and supported by some corroborative material, can solely be made the basis for conviction, Habibullah v. The State 1971 SCMR 341; Abdul Majid v. The State 1980 SCMR 935; Sheri Zaman v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1526; Wazir Khan v. The State 1989 SGMR 446; Muhammad Gul v. The State 1991 SCMR 942; Arabistan v. The State 1992 SCMR 754; Javaid Masih v. The State 1993 SCMR 1574; Muhammad Ismail v. The State 1995 SCMR 1615; Mst. Naseem Akhtar .v. The State 1999 SCMR 1744; Fazal Mahmood v. The State 1999 SCMR 2040; Nasar Khan v. The State 2000 SCMR 130 and Nasreen Akhtar v. The State 2000 SCMR 1634 ref. 2001 Lawvision 147 = 2001 SCMR 988 Medical corroboration, abscondance of appellants and admission of motive part by parties--Effect of--FIR stood recorded at police station within an hour of occurrence, which establishes beyond any shadow of doubt presence of complainant at spot, who without fail approached police and dictated his statement--This bring us to hold that FIR is genuine and not fabricated piece of evidence and, as such, maximum legal sanctity is to be attached to it--Presence of eye witnesses at place of occurrence is amply .proved--They are by all means natural witness of occurrence--Mere relationship of witnesses with deceased in this case would not effect veracity of prosecution version--Defence has virtually failed to break up hard facts furnished by eye witnesses-There are no defects or flaws in their statements which may ultimately result in annihilation of their evidentiary value--Minor discrepancies of some improvements to further explain certain circumstances cannot be considered as ground for rejection of testimony of eye-witnesses--Motive part of occurrence is almost admitted by parties--Medical evidence speaks of deliberate excessive violence upon deceased by most formidable weapons--Fullest participation of appellants cannot be doubted by any stretch of imagination--Number of injuries commensurate with number of assailants and depicts use of fire arms of different calibre--Statements of eye-witnesses are also corroborated by recoveries of weapons--Next most significant fact of this case is very absconsion of appellants after occurrence--This fugitiveness on part of appellant also furnishes necessary corroboration to guilt of accused--Appeal dismissed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1254

 

Bail---Non-mention of the names of accused in the F.I.R. was immaterial as they were not previously known to the complainant or prosecution witnesses---Failure to hold identification parade ---Effect--­Matters like absence of eminent features of accused in the F.I.R. or holding of no identification parade required deeper appreciation of evidence which was not permissible at bail stage---Even otherwise, holding of identification parade was not a requirement of law, which was only one of the methods to test veracity of evidence of eye-witnesses who had an occasion to see the accused and claimed to identify them---Vehicle snatching was an act of terrorism---Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. 2000 P Cr. L J 331  Benefit of doubt in bail:-1987 MLD 2227.

Both co-accused coming armed. 1981 Law Notes 476 + 1986 SCMR 1232

 

Both the parties at higher tempers. Sudden quarrel/fight. Case under Except. IV to S. 300, P.P.C. PLD 1982 S.C. 337.

 

Common intention - Essence of liability to be found in. the existence of common intention the person. PLD 1954 F.C. 77.

 

Common intention and abetment. Actual commission of the abetted act is not a sine qua non of the offence of abetment nor so is the guilty intention or knowledge of the person abetted or its community with the abettor. PLD 1971 Lah.959.

 

Common intention and abetment. PLD 1986 Quetta 26.

 

Common intention and common object. Not synonymous. 1971 P.Cr.L.J. 445.

 

Common object of unlawful assembly. 1990 MLD 461 + PLD 1957 S.C. (Ind.) 133.

Concept. 1991 P:Cr.LJ 2110.

 

            Forum of appeal  -Petitioner faced trial under S. 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 but on conclusion of trial, he was convicted and sentenced to death by Court of Session--Appeal against conviction and sentence was competent before High Court and not before Federal Shariat Court--Murder reference was also maintainable before High Court--Petitioner sentenced to death under S. 302/34 P.P.C.-  Sessions Judge was bound to send reference for confirmation of death sentence to High Court and petitioner rightly filed appeal under S. 410 Cr.P.C. to High Court against his conviction and sentence—Appeal against such conviction and sentence was thus, not competent before Federal Shariat Court. PLJ 2002 SC 1186

 

Murder case--Non-examination of Police official who had been handed over spent cartridges for delivery to Forensic Laboratory--Effect--Leave to appeal was granted to examine effect of non-examination of Police Official who was handed over spent cartridges for delivery to Forenisc Laboratory to see whether empties delivered at the Laboratory were the same which were found at the scene of occurrence or had been tampered with. PLJ 2000 SC 1099

 

--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Sentence of death awarded to petitioner for offence of murder--Validity--Petitioner had committed act of terrorism inside the Court-room by indiscriminate firing at complaint party and personnel of the Court staff and killed complaint's PLJ 2000 SC 1107

 

Interested Witnesses:- Sentence of death awarded to appellant for offence of murder--Validity--Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions raised by appellant and to re-appraise evidence in that; whether prosecution evidence had been wrongly relied upon against petitioner on account of all witnesses being interested; whether ocular evidence was highly interested; whether Courts below did not properly appreciate defence version; and whether in absence of any material corroboration prosecution evidence could not be accepted against petitioner when the same had been disbelieved of all other accused. PLJ 2000 SC 1593

 

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Sentence of death awarded to appellant by Trial Court was confirmed by High Court--Validity--Leave to appeal was granted to re-examine the whole case to determine whether appellant was correctly awarded death sentence in view of his version which he took during trial that he committed offence of murder under grave and sudden provocation. PLJ 2000 SC 1091 Merely for the reason that a witness was interested one, his testimony would not be discarded per se for such reason but for safe administration of justice Courts were required to apply rule of caution by seeking corroboration to statement of interested witness on its material parts from other admissible evidence--Truthfulness or falsehood of prosecution witness could be verified by making reference to other incriminating material available on record such as oral testimonies of co-witnesses of incident or recovery of crime empties if they had wedded with crime weapons used in commission of offence and recovery had been made in accordance with law connecting accused with commission of crime, promptly lodging report of incident, circumstantial evidence etc.--Perusal evidence showed that there was consistency in prosecution case--Witnesses being trustworthy, they had no false reasons to involve accused in the commission of offence--Medical and expert evidence having been produced in support of ocular evidence by prosecution in criminal trial, same would be deemed to be of confirmatory nature--Where there was any variation in ocular and medical evidence, latter would not overweight former type of evidence if otherwise same was co-herent and trustworthy--Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in ornibus" was no longer being applied but instead for requirement of safe administration of justice, condition imposed is that evidence which was going.to be believed to be true must get independent corroboration on material particulars i.e., sifting chaff out of grain is the guiding principle in such matter--Conviction and sentence based on such evidence was thus, fully warranted. PLJ 2000 SC 1505

 

Capital punishment awarded by person of young age--practice of Courts--Delayed delivery of parcel of empties per se would not adversely affect prosecution case--Parcel was admittedly received in sealed condition and no material on record would suggest that the same was tampered with or manipulated and although conduct of specified constable was deplorable for delayed delivery of parcel in Laboratory, yet the same having not been manipulated or tampered with no adverse inference could be drawn against prosecution--Case of appellants was distinguishable from case of acquitted accused, for, evidence against appellants was fully corroborated by recovery of crime weapons at their instance which matched with crime empties recovered from the spot--Unexpalined absondence of one of the accused lends further corroboration against him--High Court after thorough examination of evidence on record, rightly maintained conviction of appellant with which no interference was warranted--One of the appellants being young in age, possibility could not ruled out that be might have acted under the influence of elders--Capital punishment being not awarded normally to young persons, sentence of death awarded to him was altered to that of life imprisonment--Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. being mandatory in nature was allowed to appellants. PLJ 2000 SC 1099

 

            Appreciation of evidence—FIR was got registered in Police station, so there was no question of deliberation and consultation about lodging of FIR, dagger was also recovered from appellant-=there were three injuries on person of deceased and same were attributed to appellant--R is not case of false implication, but it is case of which has been proved by prosecution beyond any shadow of doubt--Held : It was appellant who had committed murder of deceased--Conviction and sentence maintained. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1034

 

                 Closely related eye-witnesses;- Closely related eye-witnesses of occurrence who deposed before Trial Court would fall within category of interested witnesses, therefore, their testimony must be corroborated with independent strong evidence--Ocular account had already been disbelieved by Trial Court qua four co-accused of appellants and to rely upon such type of evidence, corroboration from some independent piece of evidence would be essential--Case of appellant can, thus, be bifurcated--Weapon of crime recovered from main accused had matched with empties recovered from spot--Such piece of evidence was sufficient to lend ample support to ocular account and to uphold conviction of main accused. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1415 Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to appellant for causing death of deceased, assailed--Legality--Day light occurrence--No previous enmity of witnesses to involve appellant falsely by letting off real culprits--Eyewitnesses presence at the spot had been sufficiently explained--Mere relationship of eye-witnesses with deceased was no ground to discard that testimony unless they were shown to be inimical and interested against accused to depose against him falsely as no previous enmity existed between parties--Mere non-mentioning of number of injuries correctly does not show that occurrence was not witnessed by them--Injuries attributed to appellant were fully corroborated by post-mortem report–Prosecutoin case was further corroborated by recovery of weapon of offence--Trial Court had already taken lenient view in awarding sentence which was maintained and affirmed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 73 Conviction and sentence of death awarded to appellant for offence of murder, assailed--Presence of witnesses at the spot was very natural and plausible--Both witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination before Trial Court but they remained steadfast and there was nothing on record to doubt credibility of such witnesses--Admittedly none of witnesses had any enmity with appellant to falsely implicate him in case--Ocular statement, narrated by said witnesses also stand corroborated by medico-legal report--Duration, location and nature of injury as narrated by eye-witnesses stand affirmed by such piece of evidence--Matter was reported to police promptly--Evidence on record was sufficient to uphold conviction of appellant. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 67

 

Evidence on record whether sufficient to sustain sentence of death--Examination of evidence would show that occurrence took place at a public place near the house of accused leading to house of parents of deceased as well as his own house, therefore, presence of deceased on the road was neither objectionable nor appellant (accused) could take benefit of being resident of locality--Parties had no background of previous enmity and independence of witnesses due to relationship was not questionable on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions--Injuries on the person of deceased would not negate evidence of natural eye-witnesses, however, prior knowledge of appellant regarding presence of deceased near place of occurrence being not established, chance encounter could be visualized and appellant having grudge in his mind for last day's incident in which deceased insulted his real uncle, decided to settle account with the deceased--Appellant being resident of locality in question, his presence at the spot of occurrence would not be un-natural, notwithstanding the fact that be was armed with "Chhuri", thus, element of premeditation was missing--Appellant had a chance encounter in which caused single blow with "Churri" to deceased on account of exchange of abuses by deceased with his uncle without any other motive--Such mitigating circumstances would not justify extreme penalty of death--While maintaining conviction under S. 302(b) P.P.C. service of appellant was altered from death to life imprisonment--Appellant would also pay specified amount of compensation to heirs of deceased--Benefit of S. 382-B of Cr.P.C. was, however, not extended to appellant. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1611

 

                 Appeal against Conviction and sentence:-- Occurrence possibly was result of bad mouthing between parties which had taken place on account of deceased having climbed on to a platform located in front of tailoring shop—In incident, accused picked up scissor and gave a solitary blow to abdomen of deceased who lost his life on account of remaining at the spot for a long time--In facts and circumstances of case, offence under Section 302-(b) P.P.C. was not made out against convict--He could have been convicted under Section 302-(c) P.P.C., as incident had taken place at business premises of accused party and he in all probability had acted in selfdefence--Prosecution case as set up is not established and due benefit of that in the matter of conviction and sentence has to be extended to convict--Held : Appellant convicted u/S. 302(c) and sentenced to five years R.I.--Accused, however, shall not be entitled to benefit made u/S. 382-B Cr.P.C. as force employed by him in the incident appears to be excessive--Appeal partly accepted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1237

 

Decision of cases together  - Case registered under Ss.337-A(ii) & 337-F(vi)/34, P.P.C.  - Co-accused were sent up to face trial and Trial Court examined witnesses  - Application under S.249-A, Cr. P. C. by co-accused  - Court acquitted all of the accused persons from charges against them  - Two cases were registered, one of these cases was counter-case which had arisen out of the same F.I.R. wherein accused alongwith two co-accused had been arrayed as accused persons  - Both cases having arisen out of one and the same incident and also the same F.I.R., rule of propriety and justice demanded that both should have been taken up together because prosecution version in one case was in defence in the other - Trial Court had erred in taking up one case in absence of the other one whereas both cases should have been decided together and separate judgments had to be passed in each case  - Order whereby co-accused stood acquitted, was set aside and cases were remanded for taking up both cases together and to pass proper judgment.  2000 P. Cr. L J 1570

 

Existence. Not susceptible of direct proof. 1973 SCMR 69.

 

Fatal blow not attributed to the co-accused. Not a case of common intention. PLD 1972 Lah.19.

 

Reliability of a witness:- It is intrinsic worth and value of evidence, which is always relevant for determining reliability of a witness in a case rather than quantity of witnesses:-Prosecution having proved guilt of accused by strong motive, ocular reliable testimony coupled with corroborative medico legal opinion and recovery of crime weapons--Case of appellants is distinguishable and not at par with that of co-accused since acquitted--It is not ascertainable from record as to at what point of time and at whose hands one absconded accused sustained injuries--Callous and brutal manner in which appellants acted and caused fatal fire-arm injuries, does not justify mitigation of sentence. PLJ 2002 SC 1126

 

Natural Witnesses:- Complainant (father) and witness (brother) were natural witness of occurrence--It was a day light occurrece and F.I.R. lodged with sufficient prompitude wherein appellant had been specifically nominated as sole perpertrator--Presence of witnesses was not unnatural or unusual--Witnesses had made consistent statements and their credibility could not be shaken during their cross-examination--Statements made by these witnesses have inspired confidence so as place implicit reliance upon them--Motive, incident and his claim in that regard had never been seriously questioned or doubted by defence--Medical evidence goes a long way in providing ample support to statements made by eye-witnesses--No mitigating circumstance warranting reduction of sentence of death passed by learned trial Court against appellant--Appellant had demonstrated a desperate character by indulging in extreme high handedness in killing a young man inside his own house over a petty dispute involving a paltry sum of Rs. 2,000/- PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 409 All three accused in furtherance of their common intention, had committed house breaking by night and had trespassed into house of deceased after having equipped themselves with fire arms including a semi-automatic weapon with intention to commit robbery by putting inmates of house in fear of instant death, had looted golden ornaments and killed three persons and had attempted to commit Qatl-e-Amd of one lady--Statements of all eye-witnesses (who include an injured lady) are found to be reliable--PWs including eye-witnesses did not have any enmity with accused, so as to falsely implicate them--Eyewitnesses have unequivocally and categorically stated about identity of accused--One of PWs had herself received as many as seven fire are injuries--There is no material on record to discredit her or other PW's--Medical evidence and evidence regarding recoveries has corroborated ocular account--Case of prosecution stands proved to hilt--All charges against accused/appellants stand fully established and there is hardly any mitigating circumstance in thier favour--As such, all three appellants had been rightly convicted by learned trial Court. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 719

 

Appreciation of evidence--Prosecution has failed to link appellant with motive, quarrel which is said to have led to occurrence was between two deceased and absconding accused--No connection between appellant and absconding accused is shown, nor was appellant alleged to be even present at the time of incident--From sequence of events, as narrated by deceased in F.I.R., it appears that eye-witness had reached the spot after injuries had been caused to deceased persons--Admission of a PW that he did not know appellant earlier coupled with fact that latter is not specifically mentioned in F.I.R. makes prosecution case highly doubtful--There is no corroboratory circumstances, for, no incriminating recovery was effected from appellant--To hold any chance of false implication, holding of identification parade is essential in cases where name and other particulars of accused are not mentioned and instead his nick-name is mentioned only--In absence of such test prosecution is required to show that accused was generally know by that name--No community of interest between appellant and absconding accused has been brought on record showing that appellant could share common intention with them in doing away with accused--Held: Prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to appellant beyond shadow of doubt--Appeal accepted. PLJ 1998 SC 1293

 

Intention-What is? 1987 MLD 1489.

 

Miscarriage of justice:- Investigating   Officer   having omitted to incorporate name of widow of deceased in FIR, who, according to complaint, was present at the spot and abetted co-accused in commission of offence-Complainant filed private complaint wherein he implicated widow of deceased-Matter was referred to Illaqa Magistrate for inquiry and report who, after recording statements of some of eye-witnesses including complainant, came to conclusion that complainant's version was false, but Trial Court did not agree with finding of inquiry Magistrate and summoned petitioner/widow of deceased to face trial - mere fact that widow of deceased was not named in FIR lodged by complainant or that complaint's version was found false by Inquiry Magistrate, could not be taken to be legitimate ground for interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction-Discretion of High Court to interfere with orders passed by Courts below was unfettered, but said power was to be exercised sparingly and only where grave injustice was likely to be caused or where there had been clear miscarriage of justice or order was illegal or perverse - Order of Trial court whereby petitioner (widow of deceased) was summoned to face trial, not suffering from any illegality or legal infirmity, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 1999 P. Cr. L. J. 1850

 

Juvenile Act, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 S. 364(2)--Appellants were minors at time of offence and yet trial was not held under Juvenile Act--There is violation of Section 364 (2) Cr.P.C. while recording statements of accused/appellants under Section 342 Cr.P.C.–Case is remanded to trial Court with directions to re-start from stage of 342 Cr.P.C. statements of appellant strictly in accordance with provisions of law--Trial Court is further directed to hear learned counsel for parties and grounds which will be agitated by them at time of trial before trial Court--Trial Court is further directed to take into consideration age factor of appellant which is borne out from record--Accordingly case is remanded. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 838

 

Knowledge and common intention-Mere presence may not be sufficient. PLD 1991 S.C. 923.

 

Knowledge is not something as intention. 1988 P.Cr.L.J. 645.

 

Mere presence of person on the spot does not necessarily attract S. 34. NLR 1978 S.C. (Criminal) 636; 1978 SCMR 49.

 

Modification of sentence of death--Defence had only pleaded that sentence of death be modified to that of life imprisonment, there was, however, no mitigating circumstance in favour of appellant for modification of sentence--Appellant having committed Qatl-i-amd of two un-armed innocent persons in a callous and brutal manner, were not entitled to lesser imprisonment--Sentence of death awarded by courts below was thus, affirmed. PLJ 2002 St 1283

 

Motive is shrouded in mystry--Evidence against appellants is in shape of identification parade which is a weakest type of evidence as held in 1994 S.C.M.R. 137 by Privy Council--Honourable Judges of Privy Council have held that three pieces of evidence cannot be relied from all the angle, (i) Evidence of children (ii) evidence of an accomplice and (iii) identification--Since material witness has z. been examined by prosecution and motive is shrouded in myste, and piece of evidence (identification parade) against appellants is weakest type of evidence and same is not held in accordance with procedure laid by Superior Courts giving benefit of doubt to appellants and accordingly impugned judgment is set aside. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 826

 

Murder and robbery--Conviction and sentence to three accused--Appeal against--Motive set by prosecution was that deceased was murdered during snatching of motor-cycle but motor-cycle was lying with the deceased so this part of evidence is unbelievable--Out of three occurred one accused made extra-judicial confession--Witnesses are not hostile--They are not related to deceased and being independent witnesses, their evidence inspires confidence--Although extra-judicial confession is a weak one but if it is corroborated by other independent sources same can be relied upon--Recovery of empty pistol and its matching with weapon and medical evidence corroborates extra-judicial confession of appellant--Prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against main appellant--There is no evidence of extra-judicial confession against other two appellants--Extra-judicial confession of main accused cannot be used against co-accused without corroboration from independent sources--Gun recovered from one co-accused is of no consequence as no empty of gun was found at the spot--Mere recovery of revolver having a fired empty in its chamber without any positive report from Forensic Science Laboratory is not sufficient to prove case against him--He has not made any extra-judicial confession before any PW--Implication of two appellant is not free from doubt, benefit of doubt extended and they acquitted--Convicted and sentence of one accused maintained. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 620

Murder during dacoity--Offence of--Appeal against--Appreciation of evidence--Many improvements have been made by eye witnesses before trial Court--According to FIR and statement of complainants recorded before trial Court is that only one fire was shot by fatty person but according to post mortem report there were two separate injuries on person of deceased--Even no description of accused has been given in FIR i.e. height, colour and age or any other particulars through which they could be identified easily--There is no report of firearm expert--There is conflict between ocular account and medical evidence--Had eye witness seen occurrence with their own eyes, they must have stated that appellants have fired two shorts at time of occurrence--Held: Defence has been able to create doubt in prosecution case who failed to prove its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt--Appeals accepted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 771

Murder of four year child--Acquittal of two co-accused but sentence of life imprisonment to appellant--Appeal against--Investigation conducted by Police Officers was not only disappointing but disgusting as well--Whole family of acquitted co-accused was arrested and apprehended merely for the reason that trace dogs led to his house therefore, whole family was brutally tortured to extract evidence--Hardly any reliance can be placed on such like investigation--Occurrence took place on 22.8.1997 while according to PWs, appellant made extra-judicial confession on 5.9.1997 about fourteen days after occurrence--Medical examination was not in line with alleged confession--Motive was too weak to be believed--Prosecution case was replete with doubts and prosecution also miserably failed to prove it against appellant--Appellant acquitted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 834

--Murder of Police Constable by a narcotics paddler with a view to resist his arrest at the hand of police, party fired--No mitigating circumstance in favour of appellant, for lesser punishment--Conviction and sentence awarded to  him by trial Court under Section 302(b) PPC.            PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 263

Murder of Police Officer at nakabandi--In their statements in cross-examination witnesses have categorically stated that there was no electric light on roadside where occurrence took place--There is nothing in statements of witnesses that either electric light or any other light was available at the time of occurrence to identify accused--Witnesses have not stated that accused were identified in light of vehicle--There is also no evidence that either it was a moon lit night or that assailants were identified in torch light--Description of accused without their identification at the time of occurrence could not possibly be given in complaint and statements of witnesses--Identification of appellants in dark night as stated by PWs was not possible and consequently their identification in Jail would be of no consequence--It is an admitted fact that accused was arrested in case in hand while he was under arrest in another case, therefore, possibility that accused was shown to the witnesses who were police officials before Identification Parade would not be ruled out--Similarly, other accused who having been found in possession of vehicle allegedly used in occurrence on arrest much later to occurrence was sent to judicial lock-up and thus appellants could easily be exposed to witnesses (police officials), in he Police Station as well as in Jail, therefore, identification of appellants in Jail and subsequently in Court would be of no evidentiary value to connect them with commission of offence--If vehicle allegedly recovered from one accused was used in occurrence, it would not be a proof of participation of that accused in occurrence--Prosecution has not been able to bring any other evidence direct or circumstantial to connect appellants with crime--Sole evidence of identification being highly doubtful and having not been proved up to required standard would not be attached any weight and with exclusion of evidence of identification, it would be a case of no evidence--Appeal allowed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 538

Murder, dacoity--Death sentence--Appeal against--Occurrence took place at 6.30 a.m. in the month of March which was about Maghrib prayers time and sufficient light was available--Identification parade was conducted after observing all formalities--Apart from identification, recovery of articles also corroborates prosecution story--Empties taken into possession from sport tallied with kalashnikov used by one appellant--Prosecution witnesses have no previous enmity to implicate appellants in false case--Two appellants were declared proclaimed offenders which was important factor to corroborate their involvement--Conviction and sentence of all accused maintained except one who was stated 15 years at the time of identification parade and the time of recording of his statement U/S. 342 Cr.P.C. he was stated 17 years--Being juvenile his sentence converted from death to life imprisonment--With this modification all appeals dismissed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 469

Murder, rape etc. by 3 persons—Conviction and sentence—Appeal against—Complainant party knew appellant since before occurrence complainant and victim who was raped was a natural witness—Both witnesses had absolutely no back-ground of animosity with appellant to falsely implicate him—witnesses statements had received ample support from medical evidence—Incident commenced at 2.30 A.M. during a night but to have continued till morning—Presence of lantern inside room where occurrence had taken place and duration of incident left no doubt that complainant and victim girl had ample opportunity to identify one of the perpetrator—Two pother appellant nominated in supplementary statement four days after occurrence without any valid basis—Waj Takkar evidence provided by and witness has been found utterly unreliable as he had seen three persons running away and he had not disclosed as to how he had identified those three persons to be appellants especially when occurrence had taken place during a night and this witness had never claimed to be carrying any light with him—There are serious doubts regarding two appellant’s identification and implication as co-culprits of main appellant—Death sentence of main appellant confirmed whereas conviction and sentence of two co-culprits set aside and they are acquitted of charge by extending benefit of doubt 2002 Lawvision 93. =  PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 571

Murder--Confessional Statement u/S. 164 Cr.P.C.--Trial Court and High Court have failed to record reasons for awarding lesser punishment to respondents, who committed preplanned triple murder in a very brutal and gruesome manner and burried dead bodies in houses--Till time of disclosure of murders by respondents themselves in their confessional statements, it was not known to any body that they had killed three person and their dead bodies had been burned in houses, which were recovered at their instance from places specified in confessions, in presence of Magistrates--Alongwith dead bodies, rope, revolver alongwith its empties and gold ring were also recovered, in presence of Magistrates, who have proved factum of recovery in their depositions in Court--Confessional statements of respondents also find corroboration from medical evidence--Confessional statements are fully corroborated by circumstantial evidence which has proved that convict/ respondents committed pre-planned calculated murders in a highly brutal and callous manner--Keeping in view findings of both Courts below that prosecution has proved its cases against respondents beyond any shadow of doubt, they did not deserve any leniency in sentence in premeditated cruel triple murder--Life imprisonment altered into death sentence. PLJ 2001 SC 572

Murder--Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life recorded by trial Court on the basis of private complaint--Legality-Ocular account furnished by prosecution witnesses has not bee corroborated from any independent source--Conviction can although be maintained on basis of direct testimony of prosecution witnesses, provided they were confidence inspiring yet they had admitted their relationship with deceased whereas appellants had pleaded their innocence from the very first day--Complainant had also accepted the matter to be decided through arbitrator at some stage which indicated that he himself was not sure about culprits--Appellants were declared innocent in all the investigations conducted by Senior Police Officers--No weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of accused and there was no independent corroboration in support of interested prosecution witnesses--Appellants were acquitted of the charge by giving them benefit of doubt. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 6

Murder--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--Accused are nominated in promptly recorded FIR--Two prosecution witnesses have no previous enmity for false implication of appellants or their substitution by letting off real culpirts--Mere relationship is no ground to discard their testimony as it is very common in the society that impartial people do not come forward to depose against criminals--They have sufficiently explained their presence where occurrence took place--Motive alleged by complainant in FIR was not proved and matter of beating was not came in the notice--Complainant party compromised with other co-accused and had sworn affidavits wherein it has been clearly stated that they do not want to prosecute complaint--Both appellants are in continuous incarceration and are in death cell since impugned judgment was passed and they have expectancy of life, therefore, it is a fit case to maintain capital punishment so while maintaining conviction, same is altered from death to imprisonment for life by extending benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.--Appeal is dismissed with above modification. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 258

Murder--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--Appellants jpint confession has no evidentiary value and same is discarded--Empties taken into possession from spot did not tally with pistol--Recovery does not connect appellants with commission of murder of four deceased--Appellants are acquitted of charge u/S. 302/460/34/ 109 PPC--Other evidence against them is recovery of articles from their respective houses--These articles were duly identified by prosecution witnesses--After re-appraisal of evidence we consider that- prosecution has successfully established its case against appellants under Section 392/34 PPC--Therefore, their sentence and conviction under Section 392/34 PPC is maintained and their appeals to that extent stands dismissed--Benefit of Section 382/B will be available to them. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 121

Murder--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt--Extension of--Both eye-witnesses produced by prosecution are not resident of place of occurrence, none from inmates of house where occurrence took place was cited as witness nor produced before trial Court, both eye-witnesses are closely related to deceased, question of false implication in this case cannot be ruled out, there is no mention of Sala in column No. 22 of inquest report, doctor at time of post-mortem did not give any opinion about cause of death, same was given 14 months after post-mortem without any plausable explanation--On same set of evidence, co-accused was acquitted against whom allegation was that he was sitting on chest of deceased and also held his arms--Then there is opinion of doctor that time between injury and death was 30 to 60 minutes which also shows that eye-witnesses have not seen occurrence because according to their statements, deceased died instantly--Held: Both eye-witnesses are chance witnesses and their presence at time of occurrence at 2 mid night does seem to be probable and natural--Held further Benefit of doubt goes to accused--Appeal accepted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 645

Murder--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--Motive part of occurrence has been proved and duly supported by witnesses--All the witnesses were subjected to a lengthy, cross-examination qua motive, but their testimony remained unshaken--Explanation of appellants regarding false involvement was just absurd, ridiculous and fantastic one--Both the witnesses had been rightly believed by trial Court--They had no grudge, grouse, malice or spite against appellants to depose falsely against them--Murders had been committed out of elaborate planning and in furtherance of common intention of both appellants--Medical evidence fully supports ocular account--There was no dispute with regard to material facts like, time, date and place of occurrence--Both appellants were declared proclaimed offenders--Absconsion was a strong circumstance corroborating ocular evidence to prove guilt of appellant--Distance between two places was small and both incidents were committed within short span of fifteen minutes--Motive was same in both cases and accused were also same--Second murder was committed during course of same transaction--Regarding consolidation of cases neither at the time of consolidation any objection was raised nor at the time of appeal such plea was taken--Objections regarding consolidation of cases over-ruled--Keeping in view above scenario death sentence confirmed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C.. (Lahore) 454

Murder--Conviction and Sentence--Appeal against--No features or descriptions of accused were given in FIR--Appellant was arrested about 2 years and 8 months after occurrence–It is not possible that some person would identify an accused person who had some glimpse of an accused person for some minutes--Even conduct of PWs was most unnatural--Appellant was only armed with danda at time of occurrence and three young male persons were present there--No body tried to apprehend accused or even tried to follow him to arrest him--If prosecution had eye witness account then why it had introduce witnesses of extra judicial confession--This in fact shows anxiety on part of complainant party to bring on record as much evidence as they can against appellant to get him punished, presence of eye witnesses at spot is doubtful--It is also not believable that on 21.5.1999 on pointation of appellant danda was recovered–Witness to that recovery was real brother of complainant--This is also not believable--As far as identification parade is concerned that had taken place 2 year and 8/9 months after occurrence--It was not possible to identify appellant by witnesses after such a long period--Suggestion of defence counsel that appellant was shown to witnesses before identification parade seems to be more plausible and convincing one and no question has come on record even from side of prosecution that why appellant had committed murder of deceased--Appeal accepted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 7

Murder--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--Ocular account has not been corroborated by medical evidence or recovery of weapon of offence and according to statement of doctor possibility cannot be ruled out that Injuries Nos. 3, 4 and 5 could be result of one fire shot (not fired by appellant), therefore, benefit of doubt is to be extended his appeal is allowed and his conviction and sentence is set aside--He is on bail, his sureties are discharged. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 258

Murder--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--Prosecution has successfully proved charges against appellants by production of ocular account, medical evidence, motive and recoveries coupled with spot arrest--F.I.R. was promptly lodged directly in police station--Expeditious registration of case against appellants is also a circumstance, which cannot be lightly ignored--Mere fact that some contradictions or improvements were made by witnesses would not materially affect case of prosecution--Prosecution witnesses made statements after more than three years of occurrence before trial Court, certain contradictions between statements at trial and earlier statements are inevitable--Contradictions by themselves do not lead to result that whatever witnesses stated on the salient features of case and which conforms to other evidence on record is to be thrown out--Witnesses have not made parrot like statements--Their evidence inspires confidence and was rightly believed by learned trial Judge while holding them guilty of charges against them--Appeals dismissed.            PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 252

Murder--Conviction and sentence--Appeal agent--We have carefully considered arguments--Allegation against accused that he had raised Lalkara exhorting his co-accused to teach a lesson to deceased- Even according to prosecution story, said accused was empty handed that time of occurrence--There is no allegation that he had caused and injury to deceased or to any of PWs--Had he common intention with his co accused, he could have tried to cause any injury to deceased or to any of PWs but there is no allegation to that effect--Admittedly he did not cause any injury to any of eye-witnesses nor there is any allegation that he had grappled with any of them--Sufficient evidence does not exist on record to connect said accused accused with offence--None of charges proved against him beyond reasonable doubt--There is no convincing evidence on record to effect that he had common intention with co-accused to cause death of deceased or to cause injuries to PWs, with intent to kill them—As such, judgment of learned trial Court to extent of appellant cannot be upheld and under circumstances he is entitled to benefit of doubt--So far as co-accused is concerned, prosecution has fully established its case—Two PWs who were eye-witnesses of occurrence have fully established that it was co-accused who had fired and killed, deceased--They have also proved

Murder--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit . of doubt--$oth P.W's are real brothers of deceased and as per their own contention of previous enmity between parties, they are interested witnesses and their evidence would require thorough scrutiny--After medical examination and recoveries of 5 empties of 7.62 bore and 2 empties of 303 bore from spot, at trial, witness has attributed particular type of weapon to accused-appellant and absconding accused so as to fit in with recoveries made at spot and nature of injuries received by deceased--Acquitted accused was neither charged in FIR nor was he attributed firing two shots with his D.B shotgun--Besides all improvements/ exaggerations and complete departure from initial story, evidence of two eye-witnesses is further discredited by medical evidence--Observations of medical officer casts doubt over actual time of occurrence and thereby a doubt regarding witnessing of occurrence by two eye-witnesses--Receipt of injury on person of deceased also does not suggest his instantaneous death and even Medical Officer has given time between injury and death as half to one hour--Location of injury also does not suggest that deceased immediately on receipt of injury should have gone in comma--There is no evidence regarding any narration by deceased during interval of receipt of injury and his death--In these circumstances manner a$d time 'at which occurrence took place becomes doubtful--Concealment in FIR regarding injury caused to Mst. B and subsequently dubbing her to have been won over by deceased party, would further create doubt that had said lady been produced at trial, she would not sing in tone prosecution wanted--Occurrence did not take place in manner alleged by prosecution with drastic improvement/exaggeration and secondly defence version make prosecution story completely incredible and conviction on such shaky and unreliable evidence would be defeating general principle of criminal justice that benefit of doubt in each case shall be extended to accused--Prosecution failed to establish its case against accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly extending benefit of doubt while accepting appeal conviction and sentence set aside. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1268

Murder--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Complainant (PW-8) had also not seen occurrence himself and alleged extra-judicial confessions were also not made before him--Prosecution had not set up any motive in this case prompting appellants to perpetrate alleged offences against deceased--Admittedly no incriminatory material or article was recovered from appellants' custody during investigation--As regards medical evidence same cannot by itself identify perpetrator of an offence--Evidence regarding extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by appellants is marred by improbabilities and vitiated by down right absurdities rendering same to be utterly unreliable--(PW-12) had stated before learned trial Court in categoric terms that during investigation he had never gone to police and he had never made any statement before police--This had clearly established that he disowned statement being relied upon by prosecution to be a statement of this witness made under Section 161, Cr.P.C. before investigating officer--Thus, this witness had, for all practical purpose, made a statement regarding alleged extra-judicial confession for first time before learned trial Court and not at any stage before that--Such a belated disclosure by this witness about only piece of evidence worth any consideration has rendered statement of this witness to be not worthy of much credence--Unnatural and unbelievable conduct displayed by deceased's close relative like her brother (PW-13), (PW-12), husband PW-I6) and paternal cousin (PW-8) is such that claim having been made by all these witnesses regarding alleged making of extra-judicial confession by appellants has becoe totally unacceptable keeping in view our social attitude--All these witnesses had claimed to have shared an information regarding gang-rape and murder of their very close relative but they had kept quiet for three days before reporting matter to police or informing any other relative in that regard--Such a claim or stand is not only naive but same can be accepted only with a lump of salt--Prosecution had failed to prove its case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, by extending benefit of doubt to appellants this appeal is allowed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1 11

Murder--Conviction sentence--Appeal against--Perusal of evidence would show-that no material was brought on record in support of plea that accused were substituted for unknown culprits on account of grudge against them for their disclosing illicit connections of daughter of deceased--It was not disclosed that with whom daughter of deceased was carrying illicit relations--Substitution of an innocent person for an actual culprit being rare phenomena, there was no reason of involving appellants in murder case without any background of enmity of accused with family of deceased and poor ladies would not take risk of permanent enmity with appellants by implicating them in a false case--It is established on record through medical evidence that deceased and a lady sustained injuries with bullets and recovery of bullet empties from spot would show that pistol was used in occurrence--Prosecution has not suggested any other motive behind occurrence except that accused trespassed into courtyard of house of deceased for purpose of committing dacoity and during cross-examination nothing took place in manner as stated or that assailants have no intention to commit theft--Ocular account of natural witnesses being independent and confidence inspiring was fully corroborated by medical evidence and attending circumstances, therefore, charge against appellants under Section 302/324 PPC for causing death of a person and injury to a female stood proved beyond reasonable doubt--Appeal dismissed PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 70

Murder–Mitigating circumstances--While considering question of sentence, Court find that accused with intention to commit theft entered in courtyard of house of deceased and on having been identified opened firing but it was not known as to whether who fired at whom and consequently it was difficult to fix individual responsibility of causing injuries to deceased and and a female--Held : Considering it a mitigating circumstances in favour of appellant High Court maintain their conviction under Section 302 PPC for causing murder but reduce their sentence from death to imprisonment for life and similarly while maintaining sentence of fine, reduce sentence of imprisonment of ten years' R.I. awarded to appellant under Section 324 PPC to seven years' R.I and dismiss this appeal-- PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 70

--Murder--Offence of-=Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--Inquest report, before word "  " has been made into " and state counsel conceded to this fact--Signature of doctor are on last line of all pages of inquest report--Inquest report was recorded later on after. getting post-mortem report, so all the alterations were done by I.O. in order to make it in line with statements of witnesses with post-mortem report--Two persons had fired at spot but no crime empty was recovered--No recovery was effected from appellant and he was also found innocent by three/four investigating agencies--Though opinion of Police is not binding on Court, but due to peculiar circumstances of case its has become relevant for acquittal of accused--Moreover, no recovery was effected from appellant, his case is doubtful--Complainant party had been changing his version regarding place of injury before two Courts below in Special Court A.T.A where case earlier heard and then on remand complainant party again changed version which has been mentioned above--Complainant and PW-6 and 7 had given specific place of seat of injuries of deceased in FIR and in their statements recorded u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. respectively which are contradicted with medial evidence--This is re as n that even I.0 being dishonest has been altering word either "or word "  "--Moreover, prosecution failed to prove motive in this case--Eye-witnesses were not present at spot, though there was no previous background of enmity between parties but presence of eye-witnesses is totally doubtful, conviction cannot be awarded or maintained on capital charge on this short ground--Reasons for false implication of appellant was that in fact it was appellant party who had filed civil suit against complainant party and in order to blackmail and pressurize them and to teach them lesson this false case was registered against appellant--Held it is case in which there are so many doubts and benefit of same always goes in favour of accused not as matter of grace but as matter of right--Granting benefit appeal accepted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 434

Murder--Offence of--Appraisal of evidence--Ocular account of incident as given by Ashiq Hussain (PW. 8) is that. Abdul Ghafoor accused was holding Mst. Bakhi from her hair and in one hand he was holding chhuri and Sarwar accused was holding her by neck and direct, her into their house and bolted door of courtyard--He further deposed that Samar accused was holding deceased on ground while Abdul Ghafoor accused was cutting throat with chhuri--Time of occurrence given in FIR is "Subahwela" and in deposition time given by complainant s 6.30 or 6.30 a.m.--This time given by Ashiq Hussain is "morning time"—Time mentioned of Medical Officer in post mortem report is within 24 hours--As death occurred at spot there seems to be no discrepancy in medical evidence and prosecution case--Doctor has found stomach healthy and bearing only small quantity of titled and both small and large intestines were empty--Thus time given by complainant is in line with time assessment of Doctor--Medical officer corroborates ocular evidence regarding cutting neck of deceased by accused Abdul Ghafoor—Prosecution case is supported by evidence of Ashiq Hussain and medical evidence--Held: Appellant cut throat of defence less woman hence rightly convicted u/s. 302 P.P.C. read with section 311 P.P.C.--Appeal dismissed PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 624

--Murder--Offence of--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against Appellant was son of accused/appellant--He was 16/17 years of age at time of occurrence--Role attributed to him was that of `lalkara'--No other over act was attributed to him--He being real son of appellant, possibility of his false implication cannot be ruled out--Extending benefit of doubt, his appeal is accepted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 463

Murder--Offence of--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against-Benefit of doubt--"Z" Appellant is real brother of "S"--He had no motive--He was employee of Police--According to him, he was present on his duty as guard at residence of Sessions Judge--Fatal shot was attributed to "S", his real brother--It is .not believable that "Z" appellant would accompany his real brother and nephew on motor cycle to kill deceased--He has also produced Dws to support his plea of alibi--Believing plea of alibi of appellant, possibility of his false, implication cannot be ruled doubt--Benefit of doubt is extended to accused and he is acquitted of charge--Appeal accepted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 463

Murder--Offence of--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--Fatal injury on head of deceased has been found, which according to prosecution, has been ascribed to both appellants but according to observations of doctor, possibility cannot be ruled out that injury may be result of one blow--Apart from that significant factor is injuries on person of deceased which have not been explained--Number of injuries which are in nature of abrasions, etc. suggest that some scuffle in between parties took place and during heat of passion injury was caused on head, which resulted into death of one person--Although doctor has observed that possibility of injury being from one blow cannot be ruled out yet in present case two witnesses have firmly supported prosecution and deposed on oath that both injuries had been caused by two appellants simultaneously which landed on head of deceased--By taking into consideration relevant facts and attending circumstances of case, Court of view that death is not result of any pre-planning or premeditation--It appears to be a sudden affair, wherein injuries were caused on head of deceased which proved to be fatal--No explanation, however, is coming-forth with regard to other injuries--Therefore, conviction under Section 302 (b) PPC does not appear to be justified, same is therefore, altered to one u/section 302 (c) PPC-- PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 734

--Murder--Offence of--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--Previous enmity--Interested eye witnesses--Lack of independent Corroboration--Effect of--Complaint party has shown previous enmity between them and accused party and, in such circumstances, eye witnesses who are closely related to deceased fall within domain of interested witnesses and for purpose of recording conviction for offence involving Capital punishment, rule of prudence and caution demands that there should be independent corroboration to prosecution case--Held: No independent corroboration in form of circumstantial evidence is forthcoming in support of ocular testimony of interested witnesses--Held further: It is a case where circumstantial evidence in form of site plan and recoveries are manifestly speaking against prosecution version--Conviction of appellant is not warranted by law--Appeal accepted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1684

--Murder--Offence of--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--Relationship of PW-Credibility--No back ground of enmity between parties--Appreciation of evidence--Mere relationship is no criteria to discard prosecution evidence--"A" prosecution witness is most iknnatural witness, he has also described motive in FIR and also before trial Court--"F" prosecution witness also lived near place of occurrence and after hearing hue and cry of complainant, he also came at spot--He saw appellant and his co-accused (since dead) at place of occurrence having Kalashnikov in their hands--Occurrence took place on midnight at 11.45 P.M. and matter was reported to police with 45 minutes--It was case of promptly lodged FIR--There was no question of substitution and three crime empties were also taken into possession by police from place of occurrence--There was no previous back-ground of enmity between parties--Ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence--Motive furnished by complainant is corroborated by long absconsion of appellant--Held: Prosecution has proved its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt--Appeal without merit is accordingly dismissed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 634

Murder--Offence of--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Appellant not named in FIR--Contradiction in medical and ocular evidence--Dagger recovered not stained with human blood--Validity of conviction--Question of law--Determination for--Nobody was named- in FIR, only description of accused/appellants was given but no identification parade was held although appellants were not known to complainant prior to present occurrence--Bare perusal of statement of doctor would show that duration between injury and death was from half hour to one hour but according to eye-witnesses and FIR deceased died at spot immediately--Both PWs are closely related to deceased and no independent witness from locality has been produced by prosecution--No empty was recovered from spot--Daggar allegedly recovered from "N" appellant was not stained with human blood--If one goes brief facts of inquest report, there is no mention of case FIR number this shows that FIR was recorded later on after deliberation and consutlation--Held: Prosecution has not been able to prove its case against appellants beyond shadow of doubt--Appeal accepted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 776

Murder--Offence of--Conviction and sentence--Leave to appeal--Prayer for--Appraisal of evidence--Circumstances of case indicate that as soon as PW S and deceased went to house of petitioners for patch-up between parties, they were attacked by petitioners--Therefore, there is no evidence of any sudden fight between parties and case clearly appears to be that of deliberate and premeditate crime--Consequently, as far as case against petitioner A who.caused fatal injury is concerned, there are no mitigating circumstances and he appears to have been rightly convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court--Therefore, leave in his case is refused--So far as case of prosecution against petitioner S is concerned, he is only alleged to have been armed with dandy at time of occurrence--Question therefore, arises whether he had shared same common intention to cause death of deceased alongwith co-accused--He has nevertheless been convicted of same offence alongwith A--Consequently leave is granted in case of S to consider whether his conviction u/S. 302/34 P.F.C. and sentence of life imprisonment was warranted by circumstances of case. PLJ 1998 SC 1258

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for and sentence--Appeal against--Appellant was clearly nominated in F.I.R. and he was alleged to have fired two shots with pistol 30-bore at the deceased--Two eye-witnesses of occurrence are consistent in their statements--One PW made a mention of motive which was sufficient to prompt appellant to launch a murderous attack on deceased--Medical report fully corroborates eye-witness account--Witnesses of occurrence had no enmity against appellants--Complaint is father of deceased is not sufficient to discard his testimony--Young age of appellant is no ground to provide a mitigating circumstance as deceased was also a young person, rather was only educated son of Complainant--Implication of remaining two accused is doubtful--Sentence awarded to main appellant by trial Court is liable to be modified from Section 302(a) to Section 302(b) PPC. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 551

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Appeal against--Appellant named in FIR--Delay in registration of FIR has no adverse effect to prosecution case--There was no previous history and enmity between PWs and accused persons statements of witnesses independently enough to connect appellants named in FIR--Occurrence took place at 5-00 P.M. during day light and chance of error with respect to identification of appellants cannot be expected--PWs were expected to be present at polling station being residents of same village--Their statements and motive of bogus voting cannot be ignored--Appellants cannot escape their criminal liability in light of motive, ocular evidence and medical evidence adduced by prosecution--Appeals dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1144

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Appeal against--Appellant was neither named nor his features were entered in FIR--He was arrested on 8-4-1991 and identification parde was conducted on 5-6-1991 but he could not be identified by PW-15--He made objection before Magistrate that he was shown to PWs while kept in P.S. for two months--In identification parade no role was specified by complainant to appellant--Prosecution miserably failed to establish its case--Appellant acquitted. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1144

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Appeal against--Appreciation of evidence--Undoubtedly, occurrence took place at 3.25 A.M. in the dark and ordinarily identification of appellant was difficult for an injured witness to identify culprits, therefore, she claimed identification in lantern light, which was not available at time of arrival of Sub-Inspector when it was still dark--Motive given by prosecution was shaky and weightless--Appellant allegedly used 12 bore gun in occurrence, but empties recovered from spot were of pistol and not gun--Medical evidence also shows that deceased and injured witness sustained injuries with bullets which fact is further confirmed by recovery of lead bullets from person of deceased--Case of appellant is not distinguishable to that acquitted accused--State or complainant has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of G whereas appellant stood at par to him rather on better footing--Appellant entitled to same benefit and acquitted--Appeal accepted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 797

--Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Appeal against--Complainant and his wife were natural witnesses--They had no animosity with appellant--Occurrence took place at 9.30 A.M. in july—Prosecution version finds support from site plan that privacy of complainant party was at stake--P.Ws. who had no motive to falsely charge appellant have correctly brought charge against appellant which is positive and undisturbed--However, petty discrepancies in their statements which do not disturb case of prosecution, are negligible--Testimony of ocular witnesses are supported and are fully corroborated in all material particulars after occurrence which matched with empty recovered from spot is quite genuine--Abscondence of accused/appellant for about a month or above also corroborates ocular account--Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant--Appeal dismissed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 20

--Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Appeal against--Occurrence took place at 6.00 a.m. and report has been made at 6.30 a.m.--Such a prompt report by itself can be taken as corroboration of testimony of maker of FIR--Statement of deceased made to police officer, is not only very natural, but is also straight-forward--It is well settled that once a witness makes certain utterances on oath and other party fails to cross-examine him on such deposition and even does not put suggestion as to such deposition being untrue, would tantamount to admission of such facts on part of other party--No recovery of empties from spot does not require any explanation because weapons have nowhere specified in this case and it is not every case in which empties were to be recovered--Existence of blood feud enmity between parties is another corroborative evidence against appellants in shape of motive--Statement of deceased before police while injured after recording of FIR is to be taken as Dying Declaration because said statement is made by a person as to cause of his death and as to the circumstances of transaction which ultimately resulted in his death--Appeal dismissed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 78

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Appeal against--Ocular evidence of prosecution seems to be natural and it is supported by circumstantial evidence i.e. recoveries of blood stained earth, crime empties recovered from spot, abscondence of appellant for more than one year and absence of motive for a false charge--Prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt--Since, three persons have been charged for collective firing and no specific, role of fatal shot has been attributed to appellant--Death sentence altered to life imprisonment--Appeal partially accepted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 29            .

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Appeal against--Two eye witnesses revealed some changes in their statements at trial to avoid any conflict with medical evidence--Injuries allotted to M, appellant in FIR were not traceable in evidence of doctor--Similalry role of causing injury to deceased by A. appellant with sota was introduced for first time at trial--Medial evidence qua said appellants running counter to story of FIR--Evidence of PWs to the extent of these two appellants, is not proved beyond doubt--Cloudy situation favours them for extention of benefit of doubt--Appeal accepted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1730

Murder--Offence of-Conviction for--Appeal to--Acquittal of--Challenge to--Extra Judicial Confession is a weak type of evidence which can easily be procured--A three fold proof is required to make extra judicial confession basis of Conviction : Firstly that in fact it was made, Secondly, that it was voluntarily made and Thirdly, that it was truly made--Held : Story of prosecution runs counter to natural probabilities and tends to show that confession was in fact not made. PLJ 1996 SC 467

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Challenge to--Almost all witnesses including complainant, Magistrate who recorded confessional statement and Doctor who conducted post-mortem were subjected to length cross-examination by learned counsel for Appellant but nothing was brought on record to suggest, even remotely, that anyone of the witnesses was planted witness or that they had any motive/enmity to depose against accused falsely--Most of the witnesses were consistent on all material points--Statements of most witnesses corroborate with each other--Even nothing was brought on record to show that there was some dishonesty in investigation--Defence witnesses are compulsive liar and their testimony hardly inspires confidence--Same is discarded--Appeal without substance accordingly dismissed.       PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 725

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Challenge to-ppreciation of evidence--Bitter enmity existed between parties--F.I.R. had been promptly lodged without any premeditation or delay--Complainant could not substitute real killers of his son with somebody else--Eye-witnesses including an independent witness had given a straightforward, truthful and consistent narration of occurrence which was in line with medical evidence--Prosecution had, thus, proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts--Convictions and sentences of accused were upheld in circumstances. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 451

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Challenge to--Appreciation of evidence--Witnesses are truthful and confidence inspiring--They corroborated each other in confirmation of prosecution story narrated in F.I.R.--Ocular account of prosecution is fully supported by medical evidence--Contention that despite availability of a large number of persons as natural witnesses of occurrence none was cited as prosecution witness was repelled on the ground that in our society except close relatives no one involves himself in such matters taking risk of enmity with accused--Appeal without merits hence dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1590 [DB]

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Challenge to--Contention that medical evidence does not specifically state as to what injury was cause of death although death was resulted as a cumulated effect of all injuries and in the absence of motive sentence of death cannot be imposed--Learned counsel for appellants has not contested his case for acquittal of appellants but has prayed for non-confirmation of death sentence--Medical evidence does not specify as to which injury was cause of death nor motive to have been established beyond doubt--Held : It is well established principle of law that when motive is not proved beyond doubt capital sentence of death should not be imposed--Secondly according to opinion of doctor death occurred as a result of collective effect of all three injuries and thus, none of them can be individually, independently attributed or burdened for causing death and awarding maximum sentence of capital punishment--Death sentence converted

Murder--Offence of---Conviction for--Challenge to--Evidence of complainant and other brother of deceased cannot be believed without independent corroboration--Other two witnesses have been given up as won over--In order to convict person on capital charge standard of evidence should be of unimpeachable character--FIR was not lodged immeidately--Occurrence has not been seen by any one--On mere last seen evidence conviction of appellant is not warranted--Extra-judicial confession furnished does not inspire confidence--Recovery of pistol from appellant is also of no consequence--No empty alongwith weapon was sent to expert for examination purpose--Recovery of such normal type of weapon hardly connects appellant with commission of offence--Held : Procecution has failed to establish case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt--Held further : Case is not free from doubt--Appeal accepted and conviction/sentence of appellant set aside. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 630

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Challenge to--Injured eye-witnesses had fully supported prosecution case in all material particulars whose testimony was worth reliance--Two acquitted co-accused, however, had also contributed in causing death of deceased by causing fire-arm injuries on his neck and right knee which was undoubtedly their collective act to finish deceased--Acquittal of said two co-accused having not been challenged by State or complainant, same was now a closed chapter--Death sentence awarded to accused was converted into imprisonment for life in circumstances--With this modification appeal dismissed. PLJ 2000 SC 877

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Challenge to--Presence of most of ocular witnesses on place of incident is doubtful--Deposition of P.W-1 before court indicates that he has made substantial improvement--In order to come to a just conclusion it is obligatory to find out truth by sifting grain from chaff--Injured witness suppressed true facts and the manner in which incident actually occurred--It has been argued by complainants' counsel that case be remanded to trial court for examination of Fire Arm Expert--Argument repelled--It is case of dishonest investigation by police--There is inconsistency in motive part but it will not destroy other prosecution evidence available on record--Held: Prosecution has successfully established charge against accused u/S. 324 PPC only; conviction and sentence recorded against accused u/S. 302 PPC by trial Court for causing Qatl-e-Amd of deceased is not sustainable--Held further : For the foregoing reasons appeal is partly accepted, conviction and sentence recorded against appellant u/S. 302 PPC is set aside, accordingly appellant is acquitted of charge u/S. 302 PPC only--Conviction and sentence recorded against appellant u/S. 324 PPC by trial Court is maintained--Appeal partly accepted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. Quetta 1699

Murder--Offence of--Conviction for--Challenge to--Rilfe was not used during occurrence by A appellant--Crime empties taken into possession from place of occurrence by I.O. on his maiden visit were not fired from Rifle as role of firing has not been ascribed to appellant--There is nothing on record to make out that sealed parcel of crime empties was delivered in office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore--Obviously benefit of this laxity on part of prosecution shall be derived by appellants--Report of chemical Examiner has been produced while report of serologist has not been produced in evidence and thus this part of prosecution material is also devoid of any legal force--Held : Prosecution has failed to connect both appellants with occurrence beyond reasonable doubt and charge framed against them has not been proved--Appeal accepted. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 887

--Murder--Offence of--Role of effective firing was attributed to appellant--FIR was promptly lodged--Evidence of eye-witnesses has rightly been believed by Trial Court as well as High Court with regard to role played by appellant--Evidence of PWs is natural, trustworthy and nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve their veracity--It is a daylight incident and there is no possibility of mistake in identification of appellant--Courts are bound to sift chaff from grain and keeping in view this principle, Courts below rightly acquitted co-accused because sufficient material was not available against them, but natural, reliable and trustworthy evidence was furnished by prosecution against appellant, which had rightly been believed by Courts below--Appellant has committed brutal murder with firearm--Normal penalty under Section 302 PPC is death, which has been properly awarded by courts below--Appeal dismissed.      PLJ 2001 SC 1409

Murdre--Offence of--Conviction and sentence--Appeal against--It was case of promptly lodged FIR--There is Report No. 9 dated 6.9.1997 of police station civil Lines recorded on statement of appellant with regard to abuses extended by deceased this shows that motive laid with appellant and now it was his turn to take revenge of his insult--It is then clear that prosecution has been successful in proving motive against appellants--Note produced shows that appellant though was admitted in D.H.Q hospital but absconded from there at 10 PM on 9.9.1997--While occurrence had taken place at 11.30 PM--This document produced by defence itself sufficiently demonstrates that it was appellant who had committed murder of deceased--He caused fatal injury on neck of deceased it was case of prosecution that when shot fired by appellant it head bowed upon complainant and due to blood oozing from body of deceased, clothes of complainant were also stained with blood--This proves that complainant was accompanying deceased at the time of occurrence and his statement cannot be brushed aside by any stretch of

No premeditation or preconcert. PLD 1987 Pesh. 164.

No special injuries attributed to appellant--Assailants being armed with pistol and Kalashinkov simultaneously opened fire at deceased therefore, they would equally be responsible for charge notwithstanding the fact that in what manner deceased was hit and who caused which injury on his person--Indiscriminate firing by culprits at deceased would equally be used as evidence of murder against each participant of occurrence without any distinction--Appellant was correctly identified by witnesses in identification parade which was conducted according to rules and he was also identified by witnesses in Court--Registration number of motor-cycle used in occurrence having been mentioned in F,I,R. and subsequent recovery of the same at the instance of appellant would provide strong corroboration to ocular version as also identification of appellant by such witness at the spot and subsequent identification parade in jail would established his participation in occurrence--Ocular account was strongly supported by medical evidence, identification of appellant in jail and in Court and disclosure of his name in' extra-judicial confession made by his companions, recovery of motor-cycle from him and "crime empties from place of occurrence which would establish his physical participation in occurrence at the spot--Scrutiny of evidence and its evaluation would indicate that appellant alongwith his co-accused while operating at the spot in occurrence fired at deceased as a result of which, deceased succumbed to injuries in hospital--Offence attributed to appellant being sectarian murder, same would fall within ambit of terrorism in terms of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, punishable under S. 7-A of Act, therefore, there was no mitigating circumstance in favour of appellant--Sentence of death awarded to appellant was confirmed. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 3

Occurrence had taken place on 6.5.1997 at 8.20 AM in broad day light--FIR was recorded at 8.55 AM same day—If was a case of promptly lodged FIR--Both persons were named as accused of abetment and conspiracy--None of eye-witnesses who appeared before trial Court had any animus against present appellants--Investigation was very fair--It was not carried out with malice mind because had any malice been there, then names of appellants and acquitted accused must and could have been mentioned in FIR--This witness was put to lengthy cross-examination--Explanations were also brought by defence counsel as to his relationship with accused in whose house conspiracy was hatched and he explained same--Not a single word has come on record that this witness had any animus against appellants--He had no relationship either with deceased or injured PWs.--He was most independent witness--All these eye-witnesses were not cross-examined by convicts either by themselves or through counsel despite fact, as is clear from interim orders passed by trial Court, they were given sufficient opportunities. . 2002 Lawvision 94 = PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 701

Occurrence had taken place on 6.5.1997 at 8.20 AM in broad day light--FIR was recorded at 8.55 AM same day—If was a case of promptly lodged FIR--Both persons were named as accused of abetment and conspiracy--None of eye-witnesses who appeared before trial Court had any animus against present appellants--Investigation was very fair--It was not carried out with malice mind because had any malice been there, then names of appellants and acquitted accused must and could have been mentioned in FIR--This witness was put to lengthy cross-examination--Explanations were also brought by defence counsel as to his relationship with accused in whose house conspiracy was hatched and he explained same--Not a single word has come on record that this witness had any animus against appellants--He had no relationship either with deceased or injured PWs.--He was most independent witness--All these eye-witnesses were not cross-examined by convicts either by themselves or through counsel despite fact, as is clear from interim orders passed by trial Court, they were given sufficient opportunities. 2002 Lawvision 94 = PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 701 (DB)

Offence against property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 [S. 17(4)]. 1991 P,Cr.L.J. 2110.

Offence of--Alteration of charge from S. 302 to S. 308 PPC--Challenge to--Whether accused could be first charged U/S 304 PPC and then tried for said offence, without being charged U/S 302 PPC, which is punishing section--Question of--S. 308 PPC can only be invoked where a person is found to be guilty of qatl-i-amd, but he is not liable to qisas u/S.306 or qisas is not enforceable under clause (c) of S. 307--Therefore, even if S. 308 PPC is applicable, it cannot be applied until first offender is found guilty of qatl-i-amd u/S. 302 PPC--Consequently, it is imperative that accused is first charged for qatl-i-amd u/S. 302 PPC and only when such charge has been established, that provisions of S. 308 PPC can be applied to case--Provisions of S. 308 PPC are to apply through their own force when a case falls under provisions of S. 306 PPC or clause (c) of S.307 PPC and said provisions are to be read together with S. 302 PPC and not in isolation--Therefore, learned Courts below were clearly in error--Appeal accepted and case remanded. PLJ 1998 SC 1725

Offence of--Conviction for--Appeal against--Appreciation of evidence--Both parties are related inter-se and are known to each other--Their identity is not hidden as they live in same vicinity--There was sufficient moon-light and electric bulbs were on--It is an admitted fact that accused initiated assault and therefore, he is central figure of episode--No reasons available on record to suggest that false accusation has been made by prosecution witnesses--Presence of PWs at spot has been established beyond any reasonable doubt and witnesses are natural to occurrence and have given uniform and consistent account of incident--Testimony of witnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence--Recovery of 12 bore empty from spot and recoveries of pellets from both dead bodies of two deceased suggests that it matched with weapon of offences which were attributed to accused--Testimony of prosecution witnesses commands respect, as record and cross-examination does not suggest that they had inimically deposed against accused--Besides, their account does not contain any serious contradiction or improvement--Conviction maintained and fine modified--Disposed of. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 394

Offence of--Conviction for--Appeal against--Appreciation of evidence--Both parties are related inter-se and are known to each other--Their identity is not hidden as they live in same vicinity--There was sufficient moon-light and electric bulbs were on--It is an admitted fact that accused initiated assault and therefore, he is central figure of episode--No reasons available on record to suggest that false accusation has been made by prosecution witnesses--Presence of PWs at spot has been established beyond any reasonable doubt and witnesses are natural to occurrence and have given uniform and consistent account of incident--Testimony of witnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence--Recovery of 12 bore empty from spot and recoveries of pellets from both dead bodies of two deceased suggests that it matched with weapon of offences which were attributed to accused--Testimony of prosecution witnesses commands respect, as record and cross-examination does not suggest that they had inimically deposed against accused--Besides, their account does not contain any serious contradiction or improvement--Conviction maintained and fine modified--Disposed of. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 394

Offence was committed prior to promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and challan was initially submitted in Anti-Terrorism Court but later on same was sent to Court of ordinary jurisdiction--Trial Court proceed with trial of the case from stage from where case was transferred--Validity--Anti-Terrorism Terrorism Act, 1997, was not in existence, on the day when offence was committed, therefore, Court constituted thereunder had no jurisdiction to try offence--Proceedings carried out by Anti-Terrorism Court were without jurisdiction--Judgment passed by Trial Court, whereby accused was acquitted of charge was set aside--Case was remanded to trial Court for decision afresh with consent of parties. PLJ 2001 FSC 98

One empty handed accused and caused no injury--Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether High Court has kept in view rules laid down by Supreme Court and in relatiou to appreciation of evidence in criminal cases keeping in view safe administration of justice betwixt parties--Contention of counsel for appellants that in identification test role of each of appellant has not been mentioned, therefore, some may not be believed is not tenable-Eye-witnesses have fully supported prosecution case–Moreover, eye-witnesses have no previous enmity, or malice against accused to involve them in such a heinous offence–High Court taking lenient new i.e. awarded fife imprisonment to one accused but, in Supreme Court's view High Court had wrongly held that he did not share common intention for committing murder of deceased as he was empty handed and his case was distinguishable--He caught hold of deceased and faciditated his murder at hands of co-accused appellants, who fired shots with respective weapons at deceased--Under Section 34 PPC he is liable for consequence committed under Section 302 PPC.--Since he was empty handed and did not cause any injury to deceased, High Court rightly modified his sentence, which, is not open to exceptiou--However, submission of learned ASC that sentence of life imprisonment may be modified to imprisonment already served out by appellant, in view of serious nature of crime and brutal murder of deceased, is not acceptable-- PLJ 2002 SC 593

Person charged must have consented to commission of crime committed and act done must be act contemplated. 1988 P.Cr.L.J. 645 + 1987 MLD 985 + NLR 1987 P.Cr.L.J. 590.

Presumption must not be readily applied or pushed too far. 1986 MLD 2584.

Principal accused acquitted. PLD 1988 Pesh. 123.

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185--Appellant's entitlement to concession of lesser sentence of imprisonment for life instead of death sentence awarded to him by trial Court and maintained by the High Court--Appellant's contention, that motive as alleged by prosecution could not proved was repelled--Motive for commission of offence of murder had been proved by prosecution--Appellant at the time of commission of offence was about 18 years of age and there was nothing to indicate that offence committed by appellant was of heinous or desperate nature--Evidence on record indicated that appellant believing to be deprived of his rightful ownership of land by deceased inflicted knife blows to him---Appellant being young man of eighteen years at that time appears to have been displeased by such fact and possibility could not be ruled out that while inflicting knife blow on the person of deceased he did not consider consequences of his act--Benefit of reduction of sentence, therefore, could not be denied to appellant--Conviction of appellant under Section 302/34 was although maintained, yet his sentence was reduced from death to that of imprisonment for life PLJ 2000 SC 965

Qanun-e-Shandat (10 of 1984), Art. 27--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Accused had committed brt al murders ol high officials viz. D.I.G., and A.D.I.G. in collusion with each other while acting in callous manner--Strong and independent ocular evidence furnished by three prosecution witnesses was fully established on record--Both incidents were so connected in time and space that they had constituted one and the same transaction, as such separate confessional statements were not required to have been recorded in each case, particularly when motive too was common in them--Judicial confessions were not only true and voluntary but they stood corroborated by matching of empty bullets recovered from dead-body of deceased their positive Ballistic Expert Report, m^±ive, last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession and recoveries and thus d,;lay in recording confession was not material--Confessional statements were not shown to have been recorded under any inducement, threat or promise and, thus, they were admissible in evidence in view of Art. 37 of Qanun-e-Shandat, 1984--Very basis for registration of prosecution case depended upon recovery of dead-body from Diggi, crime empties, crime weapons at instance of accused, voluntary surrendering and subsequent arrest of accused and these pieces of evidence being connecting links were natural relevant factors for registration of F.I.R. which could not be said to have been lodged after preliminary investigation, consultation and deliberation--Motive for occurrence had also been established on record--No prejudice having been caused to accused in investigation conducted by S.P., C.I.A., as such contention that he merely being complainant in case was incompetent to be an Investigating Officer, had no force--No infirmity, misreading or non-appraisal of evidence having been pointed out, concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below did not call for any interference by Supreme Court--Leave to appeal was refused accordingly.      PLJ 2001 SC 584

­Quashing of order of Magistrate discharging accused  - Notwithstanding absence of the names of accused in the Challan, Magistrate had summoned them to face the trial but on their application had discharged them on the basis of the reports of Investigating Officer under S. 169, Cr. P. C.  Once the Magistrate had taken cognizance he should have proceeded with trial of the accused, and if at any stage of the trial charge against them was found to be groundless and their conviction was not possible, he might have acquitted them under S. 249-A, Cr. P. C. - ­Absence of names of accused from Challan submitted under S. 173, Cr. P. C. could not debar Trial Court from proceeding with the case against them  - Impugned order of the Magistrate regarding discharge of accused was consequently set aside with the direction that trial against them should be held in accordance with law. 1999 Y L R 2053

Question of fact. 1986 P.Cr.L.J. 259

Question of self-defence becomes irrelevant in cases involving open fight between rival parties. PLJ 2000 SC 362

read with S.10(4) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979—S.7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Murder, rape etc. by 3 persons—Conviction and sentence—Appeal against—Complainant party knew appellant since before occurrence complainant and victim who was raped was a natural witness—Both witnesses had absolutely no back-ground of animosity with appellant to falsely implicate him—witnesses statements had received ample support from medical evidence—Incident commenced at 2.30 A.M. during a night but to have continued till morning—Presence of lantern inside room where occurrence had taken place and duration of incident left no doubt that complainant and victim girl had ample opportunity to identify one of the perpetrator—Two pother appellant nominated in supplementary statement four days after occurrence without any valid basis—Waj Takkar evidence provided by and witness has been found utterly unreliable as he had seen three persons running away and he had not disclosed as to how he had identified those three persons to be appellants especially when occurrence had taken place during a night and this witness had never claimed to be carrying any light with him—There are serious doubts regarding two appellant’s identification and implication as co-culprits of main appellant—Death sentence of main appellant confirmed whereas conviction and sentence of two co-culprits set aside and they are acquitted of charge by extending benefit of doubt. 2002 Lawvision 93 = PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 571

Sentence of death for offence of murder maintained by High Court assailed--Specific role of firing was attributed to appellant who caused firearm injuries to innocent deceased--Both the deceased were empty handed and they had not even attempted to cause any simple or grievous injury to accused party--Mere plea of appellant that he found deceased near wall of the house and in self defence, he fired at them, was ridiculous, irrational, illogical untenable which could not be accepted--Plea of defence that though appellant had committed offence of Qatl-i-Amd, normal-sentence of death should not be awarded to him was not sustainable–Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, J; Faqir Muhammad Khokhar agreeing with him [Majority judgment]. PLJ 2002 St 1283

Sentence sought to run concurrently—Accused had been convicted for three independent offences of kidnapping the citizens for ransom and one of possessing unlicensed weapon—All these offences were committed at different places and different times and being unconnected and independent of each other were tried separately—Section 397, Cr.P.C was applicable to such cases which could not be said to be exceptional calling for an order making all the sentences to run concurrently—Not recording any such order would means that the Trial Court did not intend to order the sentences to run concurrently in view of the nature of the cases against the accused—High court while reducing the death sentence of accused to imprisonment for life in one case also did not consider it fit for directing the sentences to run concurrently—Even otherwise after dismissal of appeal in two cases with modification of sentence in the third case by High Court, the judgments had attained finality under S. 369, Cr.P.C and fresh direction for the sentences to run concurrently in exercise of powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C would amount to alteration and review or modification of the appellate judgment of High court which was not permissible—Prayer made by accused for directing the sentence to run concurrently was not acceptable. PLD 2003 Kar. 260

Some overt act must be established. PLD 1970 S.C. 316.

Strong circumstances should exist. 1986 P.Cr.L.J. 1310.

Supply of statements and documents to the accused—Accused is entitled, as of right, to get copies of the statements of all witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. in terms of S.265-C(l)(c), Cr.P.C. irrespective of the fact whether they have been cited as witnesses in the calendar attached to the challan or not, seven days before the commencement of the trial—’Witness’ as used in S.265-C, Cr.P.C.—Concept—Principles—[Ahmad Hassan and others v. The State 2002 P.Cr.LJ 629 overruled]. Report of Law Reforms Commission made in years 1967-70; Nasrullah v. The State 1980 PCr.LJ 5 and PLD 1992 Lah. 336 ref. PLD 1966 (W.P.) BJ 30; Nasrullah v. The State 1980 PCr.LJ 5; 1985 PCr.LJ 388; PLD 1979 SC 53; PLD 1987 Lah. 245; 1999 PCr.LJ 46; 1998 PCr.LJ 1795; 1998 PCr.LJ 508; AIR 1957 Mad. 508 and AIR 1960 Bom. 476 mentioned. 2003 Lawvision 125 = PLD 2003 Lahore 290

Supreme Court--- Private defence, right of—Plea for reduction in sentence—Accused, in appeal before Supreme Court, had not challenged, the conviction on merits but had only urged for reduction of sentence—Court had to examine the version of accused keeping the same in juxtaposition to the case of prosecution—Mere assertion of the accused that it was the complainant party who first attacked and caused injuries to the accused side, in the absence of any medical report to such effect, would be of no avail to them—If the accused party had received injuries, in the incident, it was on their part that they should have disclosed the same to the Magistrate at the time of remand and asked for medical examination and certificate—By not agitating so before any of the concerned Authorities, it stood established on record that they were probably not injured at all and raised a false plea—Record in the present case, showed that the complainant party and the accused party had a joint Khata of disputed land which was not yet partitioned, in such circumstances, accused party was not justified to act in the exercise of right of self-defence of their property—Right of private defence of body or property would extend only when a clear danger to person or property became imminent—Number and nature of the injuries received by the complainant party suggested that they were the victims of the murderous assault and there was nothing on record that anyone from the complainant side was armed with lethal weapon just to create an apprehension in the mind of the accused person that they would be attacked and there was no option for them but to act in self-defence—When a specific plea of self-defence was raised, the onus to prove such plea lay upon the party claiming the same which in the present case, the accused had failed to do—Brutal and atrocious manner in which the accused had killed the deceased and caused severe injuries to the prosecution witnesses did not call for any leniency in the sentence—Trial Court as well as the High Court had elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and had dealt with the same in detail, leaving no room for further consideration—Finding no good reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, Supreme Court, maintained the judgment and dismissed the appeal. 2002 Lawvision 195 = 2002 SCMR1425

There must be material to show some avert act done in furtherance of common intention. 1990 MLD 461.

Trial Court while convicting the accused under Ss.302/34, P.P.C. for an offence punishable with death had sentenced them to imprisonment for life without stating reasons as to why sentence of death was not passed—High Court had also tailed to give reasons for not passing the sentence of death—Leave to appeal was, therefore, granted to consider whether in the circumstances of the case, death sentence was the appropriate sentence or lesser sentence of imprisonment for life would serve the cause of justice 2001 Lawvision 147 = 2001 SCMR 988

Two ladies names as witnesses were not mentioned in Farade-Bayan however, they were introduced as witnesses after victim of attack succumbed to his injuries--Complainant could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why names of both ladies was not mentioned in his statement on basis of which Farad-e-Bayan was recorded--Where witness had been introduced at a later stage purposly manoeuvered to implicate accused--Such delay would adversely affect prosecution case and no explicit reliance can be placed on testimony of such witness. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Quetta) 157

Two ladies names as witnesses were not mentioned in Farade-Bayan however, they were introduced as witnesses after victim of attack succumbed to his injuries--Complainant could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why names of both ladies was not mentioned in his statement on basis of which Farad-e-Bayan was recorded--Where witness had been introduced at a later stage purposly manoeuvered to implicate accused--Such delay would adversely affect prosecution case and no explicit reliance can be placed on testimony of such witness. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Quetta) 157

35.

When such an act is criminal by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention:
Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with the knowledge or intention.

 

36.

Effects caused partly by act and partly by omission:
Whoever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and pertly by an omission is the same offence.

Illustration

A intentionally causes Z’s death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food and partly by beating Z. A has committed murder.

 

37.

Co-operation by doing one of several acts constituting an offence:
When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence.

Illustrations

(a)

A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small dose of poison. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. Z dies from the effects of the several doses of poison so administered to him. Here A and B intentionally co-operate in the commission of murder and as each of them dose an act by which the death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though their acts are separate.

 

(b)

A and B are joint jailors, and as such, have the charge of Z, a prisoner, alternately for six hours at a time. A and B, intending to cause Z’s death, knowingly co-operate in causing that effect by illegally omitting, each during the time of his attendance, to furnish Z with food supplied to them for that purpose. Z dies of hunger. Both A and B are guilty of the murder of Z.

 

(c)

A, a jailor, has the charge of Z, a prisoner. A intending to cause Z’s death, illegally omits to supply Z with food; in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him. B, without collusion or co-operation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z’s death, Z dies of hunger. B is guilty of murder, but as A did not co-operate with B, A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder.

 

 

38.

Persons concerned in criminal act may be guilty of different offences:
Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.

Illustration

A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assist A in killing Z. Here, though A and B are both engaged in causing Z’s death, B is guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable homicide.

 

Court Decisions

 

The principles of this section applies to offence under S. 149, P.P.C. PLD 1968 S.C. 372.

The section provides different punishments for different offences. AIR 1925 P.C. 1 - 52 I.C. 40. 

39.

“Voluntarily”:
A person is said to cause an effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.

Illustration

A sets fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating robbery and thus causes the death of a person. Here, A may not have intended to cause death, and may even be sorry that death has been caused by his act; yet, if he knew that he was likely to cause death; he has caused death voluntarily.

 

Court Decisions

The word 'voluntarily' connotes doing an act of ones. own privilege. If a person knows the probable consequence of the means being used by him, he cannot escape the resultant cause or damages which may not be intended by him. PLD 1963 Lah.189. 

40.

“Offence”:
Except in the chapters and sections mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of this section, the word “offence” denotes a thing made punishable by this Code. In Chapter IV, Chapter V-A and in the following sections, namely, Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 187, 194, 195, 203, 211, 213, 214, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 327, 328.329,330.331,347,348, 388, 389 and 445, the word “offence” denotes a thing punishable under this Code, or under, any/special or local law as hereinafter defined. And in Sections 141, 176, 177, 201, 202, 212, 216 and 441 the word “offence” has the same meaning when the thing punishable under the special or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine.

 

41.

“Special law”:
A “special law” is a law applicable to a particular subject.

 

42.

“Local Law”:
A “local law” is a law applicable only to a particular part of the territories comprised in Pakistan.

 

43.

“Illegal”, “Legally bound to do”:
The word “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action, and a person is said to be “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal in him to omit.

 

Court Decisions

 

Illegality of jurisdiction: Where Court or Tribunal has jurisdiction and it determines a question it cannot be said that it acted illegally or with material irregularity merely because it came to an erroneous decision on question of fact or even of law. PLJ 1976 S. C. 480.

Medical Officer charging fees in excess. Not doing something illegal. PLD1961 S.C. .224.

44.

“Injury”:
The “injury” denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.

 

45.

“Life”:
The word “life” denotes the life of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the context.

 

46.

“Death”:
The word “death” denotes the death of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context.

 

47.

“Animal”:
The word “animal” denotes any living creature other than a human being.

 

48.

“Vessel”:
The word “vessel” denotes anything made for the conveyance by water of human beings or of property.

 

49.

“Year”, “Month”:
Wherever the word “year” or the word “month” is used, it is to be understood that the year or the month is to be reckoned according to the British calendar.

 

50.

“Section”:
The word “section” denotes one of those portions of a chapter of this Code which are distinguished by prefixed numeral figures.

 

51.

“Oath”:
The word “oath” includes a solemn affirmation substituted by law for an oath, and any declaration required or authorized by law to be made before a public servant or, to be used for the purpose of proof, whether in a Court of Justice or not.

 

52.

“Good faith”:
Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention.

 

Court Decisions

 

Good faith :-- The expression 'good faith' signifies 'honesty of intention'. In Criminal Law it signifies exercise of due care and attention meaning thereby employing genuine efforts to reach the truth. This section does not define 'good faith' but gives a negative definition that 'nothing is said to be done or believed in 'good faith' when it is done or believed without due care and caution. Section 52 makes no reference to the moral elements of honesty and right motive which are involved in the popular significance of the expression 'good faith' and which are predominant in the positive definition enacted in the other Acts, e.g., the General Clauses Act, 1897. AIR 1953 Mad. 936.

The Penal Code was enforced in 1860 whereas General Clauses Act was promulgated in 1897. The definitions in the General Clauses Act are to apply to all Central Act made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act if there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context as is clearly mentioned in the beginning of section 30 which contains definitions. Therefore an accused can succeed on the basis of 'good faith' only if he can establish that his 'good faith' accords with the provisions contained in section 52 of the Penal Code. PLD 1958 Lah.747.

 16[

52-A.

“Harbour”:
Except in Section 157, and in Section 130 in the case in which the harbour is given by the wife or husband of a person harboured, the word “harbour” includes the supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, arms; ammunition or means of conveyance, or assisting a person by any means, whether of the same kind as, those enumerated in this section or not, to evade apprehension.

 

Court Decisions

 

Harbour:-- Section 52-A was inserted by Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1942, to provide a uniform meaning to the expression 'harbour', which expression has occurred in more 'than one sections of the Penal Code. (It finds mentioned in Ss. 130, 136, 157, 212 and 216-A of the Code) With the exception of Ss. 157 and 130 the word 'harbour' includes the supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, arms, ammunition or means of conveyance, or the assisting a person by any means akin to those mentioned. This clearly shows that mere knowledge of the whereabouts of an offender does not amount to harbouring him. AIR 1935 Cal. 350.

Good faith :‑‑‑ Predominently the expression "good faith" is a common factor in all these sections and cardinalship attaches to acts done in good faith‑‑‑Exceptions, would therefore, help the accused only if it is made out that the acts were done by him in good faith. P L D 2002 Karachi 152

] 16


CHAPTER III

OF PUNISHMENTS.

 17[

53.

Punishments:
The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are:

Firstly,

Qisas;

Secondly,

Diyat;

Thirdly,

Arsh;

Fourthly,

Daman;

Fifthly,

Ta’zir;

Sixthly,

Death;

Seventhly,

Imprisonment for life;

Eighthly,

Imprisonment which is of two descriptions, namely:--

(i)

Rigorous, i.e., with hard labour;

(ii)

Simple;

Ninthly,

Forfeiture of property;

Tenthly,

Fine

 

] 17

54.

Commutation of sentence of death:
In every case in which sentence of death shall have been passed the Federal Government or the Provincial Government of the Province within which the offender shall have been sentenced may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for any other punishment provided by this Code:

 18[

Provided, that, in a case in which sentence of death shall have been passed against an offender convicted for an offence of qatl, such sentence shall not be commuted without the consent of the heirs of the victim.

] 18

 

55.

Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life:
In every case in which sentence of imprisonment for life shall have been passed, the Provincial Government of the Province within which the offender, shall have been sentenced may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years:

 19[

Provided that, in a case in which sentence of imprisonment for life shall have been passed against an offender convicted for an offence punishable under Chapter XVI, such punishment shall not be commuted without the consent of the victim or, as the case may be, of his heirs.

] 19

 

 20[

55-A.

Saving for President prerogative:
Nothing in Section fifty-four or Section fifty-five shall derogate from the right of the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment:

Provided that such right shall not without the consent of the victim or, as the case may be. of the heirs of the victim, be exercised for any sentence awarded under Chapter XVI.

 

] 20
 21[] 21

57.

Fractions of terms of punishment:
In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty-five years.

 

 22[] 22

60.

Sentence may be (in certain cases of imprisonment) wholly or partly rigorous or simple:
In every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment which may be of either description, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct in the sentence that such imprisonment shall be wholly rigorous, or that such imprisonment shall be wholly simple, or that any part of such imprisonment shall be rigorous and the rest simple.

 

 23[] 23

63.

Amount of fine:
Where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive.

 

64.

Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine:
In every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment, and in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender, shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.

 

65.

Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine when imprisonment and fine awardable:
The term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall, not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment, which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.

 

66.

Description of imprisonment for non-payment of fine:
The imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of a fine may be of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the offence.

 

67.

Imprisonment for non-payment of fine when offence punishable with fine only:
If the offence be punishable with fine only, the imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine shall be simple, and the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine, shall not exceed the following scale that is to say, for any term not exceeding two months when the amount of the fine shall not exceed fifty rupees, and for any term not exceeding four months when the amount shall not exceed, one hundred rupees, and for any term not exceeding six months in any other case.

 

68.

Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine:
The imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of a fine shall terminate whenever that fine is either paid or levied by process of law.

 

69.

Termination of imprisonment on payment of proportional part of fine:
If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate.

Illustration

A is sentenced to fine of one hundred rupees and to four months, imprisonment in default of payment. Here, seventy-five rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of one month of the imprisonment. A will be discharged as soon as the first month has expired, if seventy-five rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of the first month, or at any later time while A continues imprisonment. A will be immediately discharged, if fifty rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of two months of the imprisonment, A will be discharged as soon as the two months are completed, if fifty rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of those two months, or at any later time while A continues in imprisonment, A will be immediately discharged.

 

70.

Fine leviable within six years, or during imprisonment; Death not to discharge property from liability:
The fine or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may be levied at any time within six years after the passing of the sentence, and if, under the sentence, the offender be liable to imprisonment for a longer period than six years, then at any time previous to the expiration of that period; and the death of the offender dose not discharge from the liability any property which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts.

 

71.

Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences:
Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided;

 

Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or

 

Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence,

the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offence.

Illustrations

(a)

A gives Z fifty strokes with a stick. Here A may have committ the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to Z by the whole beating, and also by each of the blows which makes up the whole beating. If were liable to punishment for every blow, they might be imprisoned for fifty years, one for each blow. But he is liable only to one punishment for the whole beating.

 

(b)

But if, while A is beating Z, Y interferes, and A intentionally strikes Y, here as the blow given to Y is no part of the act whereby A voluntarily cause hurt to Z, A is liable to one punishment, for voluntarily causing hurt to Z, and to another for the blow given to Y.

 

 

72.

Punishment of person guilty of one of several offences, the judgment stating that it is doubtful of which:
In all cases in which judgment is given that a person is guilty of one of several offences specified in the judgment, but that it is doubtful of which of these offences he is guilty, the offender shall be punished for the offence for which the lowest punishment is provided if the same punishment is not provided, for all.

 

73.

Solitary confinement:
Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this Code the Court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment ,the Court may, by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following scale, that is to say:

 

a time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months;

 

a time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and shall not exceed one year;

 

a time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.

 

74.

Limit of solitary confinement:
In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the period of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less -duration than such periods.

 

75.

Enhanced punishment for certain offenders under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII after previous conviction:
Whoever, having been convicted:-

(a)

by a Court in Pakistan of an offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of this Code with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards, or

 24[] 24 shall be guilty of any offence punishable under either of those Chapters with the imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.

 


CHAPTER IV

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

76.

Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law:
Nothing is an offence which Is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.

Illustrations

(a)

A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity, with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence.

 

(b)

A an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y and after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y arrests Z. A has committed no offence.

 

 

77.

Act of Judge when acting judicially:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.

 

78.

Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court:
Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice, if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.

 

79.

Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law:
Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.

Illustration

A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment, exerted in good faith of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murders in the act, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in selfdefence.

 

80.

Accident in doing a lawful act:
Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

Illustration

A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.

 

81.

Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm:
Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.

Explanation: It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.

 

Illustrations

(a)

A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty or thirty passengers on board; unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear Here, if A alters his course without any intention to run down the boat C and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the passengers in the boat B, he is not guilty of an offence, though he may run down the boat C by doing an act which he knew was likely to cause that effect, if it be found as a matter of fact that the danger which he intended to avoid was such as to excuse him incurring the risk of running down C.

 

(b)

A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this with the intention in good faith of saving human life or property. Here, if it be found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A’s act, A is not guilty of the offence.

 

 

82.

Act of a child under seven years of age:
Nothing is an offence, which is done by a child under seven years of age.

 

83.

Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

 

84.

Act of a person of unsound mind:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

 

85.

Act of a person incapable of Judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

 

86.

Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated:
In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who dose the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

 

87.

Act not Intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent:
Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by doer to be likely to cause death, or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.

Illustration

A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence.

 

88.

Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit:
Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

Illustration

A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause of death of Z, who suffers under the painful complaint, but not intending to cause Z’s death, and intending, in good faith for Z’s benefit, performs that operation on Z with Z’s consent. A has-committed no offence.

 

89.

Act done In good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian:
Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person:

Provided

First:

That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;

Secondly:

That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt; or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly:

That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Fourthly:

That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

 

Illustration

A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has his child cut for the stone by “a surgeon, knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending to cause the child’s death. A is within the exception, inasmuch as his object was the cure of the child.

 

90.

Consent known to be given under fear or misconception:
A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any action of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or

 

Consent of insane person: If the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or

 

Consent of child: Unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

 

91.

Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused:
The exceptions in Sections 87, 88 and 89 do not extend to acts which are offences independently of any harm which they may cause, or be intended to cause, or be known to be likely to cause, to the person giving the consent or on whose behalf the consent is given.

Illustration

Causing miscarriage (unless caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman) to an offence independently of any harm which it may cause or be intended, to cause to the woman. Therefore it is not an offence by reason of such harm; and the consent of the woman or of her guardian to the causing of such miscarriage dose not justify the act.

 

92.

Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent:
Nothing an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person by whose benefit it is done in good faith even without that person’s consent, if the Circumstances are such that is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit:

Provided

First:

That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death;

Secondly:

That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous, hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly:

That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt;

Fourthly:

That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

 

Illustrations

(a)

Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A not Intending Z’s death but in good faith for Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence.

 

(b)

Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z’s benefit A’s ball gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence.

 

(c)

A, a surgeon, sees child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child’s guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. A has committed no offence.

 

(d)

A is in a house which is on fire with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house-top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child and intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. Here even, if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.

 

Explanation: Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of Sections 88,89 and 92.

 

93.

Communication made in good faith:
No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made for the benefit of that person.

Illustration

A, a surgeon, in good-faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death.

 

94.

Act to which a person is compelled by threats:
Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence:

Provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.

Explanation 1: A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception on the ground” of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law.

Explanation 2: A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced by threat of instant death, to do a thing, which is an offence by law; for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this exception.

 

95.

Act causing slight harm:
Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

 

 

Of the right of Private Defence

96.

Things done in private defence:
Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

 

97.

Right of private defence of the body and of property:
Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend;

First:

His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;

Secondly:

The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

 

98.

Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.:
When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.

Illustrations

(a)

Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence, but A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.

 

(b)

A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.

 

 

99.

Act against which there is no right of private defence:

There is no right of private defence against an act which dose not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour, of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence against an act which dose not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

 

Extent to which the right may be exercised:

The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

 

 

Explanation 1 :A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.

Explanation 2: A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if deemed.

 

100.

When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death:
The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:--

First:

Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Secondly:

Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Thirdly:

An assault with the intention of committing rape;

Fourthly:

An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.

Fifthly:

An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abduction.

Sixthly:

An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

 

101.

When such right extends to causing any harm other than death:
If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the right of private defence of the body dose not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but dose extend, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99 to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.

 

102.

Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body:
The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

 

103.

When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death:
The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary Causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:-

First:

Robbery;

Secondly:

House-breaking by night;

Thirdly:

Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property;

Fourthly:

Theft, mischief or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised.

 

104.

When such right extends to causing any harm other than death:
If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section that right dose not extend, to the voluntary causing of death, but dose extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death.

 

105.

Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property:

The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences.

The right of private defence of property against theft continues tilt the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered.

The right of private defence of property against robbery Continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant-hurt or of instant personal restraint continues.

The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief.

The right of private defence of property against house breaking by night continues as long as the house-trespass which has been begun by such house-breaking continues.

 

106.

Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person:
If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.

Illustration

A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He can not effectually exercise his right of private defence with out firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children.

 


V

OF ABETMENT

107.

Abetment of a thing:
A person abets the doing of a thing, who:

First:

Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly:

Engages with one or more other person or, persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, And in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly:

Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1: A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procures a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

 

Illustration

A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully presents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

Explanation 2: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

 

108.

Abettor:
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same Intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

Explanation 1: The abetment of the illegal omission-of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

Explanation 2: To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.

 

Illustrations

(a)

A instigates 8 to murder C, B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.

 

(b)

A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.

 

Explanation 3: It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor or any guilty intention or knowledge.

 

Illustrations

(a)

A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.

 

(b)

A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z’s death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby, cause Z’s death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing ah offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.

 

(c)

A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of As instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty, of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling house, and is liable to the punishment provided for that offence.

 

(d)

A intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A includes B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s possession in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft.

 

Explanation 4: The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also an offence.

 

Illustration

A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and commits that offence in consequence of B’s instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment.

Explanation 5: It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.

 

Illustration

A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person to administer the poison, but without mentioning A’s name. C agrees to procure the poison and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administer the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has, therefore, committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder.

 

 25[

108-A

Abetment in Pakistan of offences outside it:
A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in Pakistan, abets the commission of any act without and beyond Pakistan which would constitute an offence committed in Pakistan.

Illustration

A, in Pakistan, instigates B, a foreigner in Goa, to commit a murder in Goa, A is guilty of abetting murder.

 

] 25

109.

Punishment of abetment if the Act abetted committed In consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment:
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code, for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence:

 26[

Provided that, except in case of Ikrah-i-Tam, the, abettor of an offence referred to in Chapter XVI shall be liable to punishment of ta’zir specified for such offence including death.

] 26

Explanation: An act or offence is said-to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.

 

Illustrations

(a)

A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in Section 161.

 

(b)

A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B.

 

(c)

A and B conspire to poison Z. A, in pursuance of the conspiracy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z. B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison to Z in A’s absence and thereby causes Z’s death. Here B is guilty of murder. A is guilty, of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for murder.

 

 

110.

Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intention from that of abettor:
Whoever abets the commission of an offence shall, if the person abetted does the act with a different intention or knowledge from that of the abettor, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence which would have been committed if the act had been done with intention or knowledge of the abettor and with no other.

 

111.

Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done:
When an act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly, abetted it:

Provided the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment; and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.

 

Illustrations

(a)

A instigates a child to put poison into the food of Z, and gives him poison for that purpose. The child, in consequence of the instigation, by mistake puts the poison into the food of Y, which is by the side of that of Z. Here if the child was acting under the influence of A’s instigation, and the act done was under the circumstances a probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had instigated the child to put the poison into the food of.

 

(b)

A instigates B to burn Z’s house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of property there. A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft; for the theft was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the burning.

 

(c)

A instigates B and C to break into an inhabited house at midnight for the purpose of robbery and provides them with arms for that purpose, B and C break into the house, and being resisted by Z, one of the inmates, murder Z. Here, if that murder was the probable consequence of the abetment. A is liable to the punishment provided for murder.

 

 

112.

Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act done:
If the act for which the abetter is liable under the last preceding section is committed in addition to the act abetted, and constitutes a distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for each of the offences.

Illustration

A instigates B to resist by force a distress made by a public servant, B in consequence, resists that distress. In offering the resistance, B voluntarily causes grievous hurt to the officer executing the distress. As B has committed both the offence of resisting the distress, and the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, B is liable to punishment for both these offences; and: if A knew that B was likely voluntarily to cause grievous hurt in resisting the distress A will also be liable to punishment for each of the offences.

 

113.

Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor:
When an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor of causing a particular effect and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, causes a different effect from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect.

Illustration

A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z B, In consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, if A knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, A is liable to be punished with the punishment provided for murder.

 

114.

Abettor present when offence is committed:
Whenever any person, who if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.

 

115.

Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life if offence not committed:
Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

If act causing harm be done in consequence:

And if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which cause hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

 

 

Illustration

A instigates B to murder Z. The offence is not committed. If B had murdered Z, he would have been subject to the punishment of death or transportation for fife. Therefore A is labile to imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also to a fine; and if any hurt be done to Z in consequence of the abetment, he will be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and to fine.

 

116.

Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment-if offence be not committed:
Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the. longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided for that offence; or with both.

 

If abettor or person abetted be a public servant whose duty it is to prevent offence:

And if the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty it is, to prevent the commission of such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

 

 

 

Illustrations

(a)

A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B refuses to accept the bribe. A is punishable under this section.

 

(b)

A instigates B to give false evidence. Here, if B does hot give false evidence A has nevertheless committed the offence defined in this section, and is punishable accordingly.

 

(c)

A, police officer, whose duty it is. To prevent robbery, abets the commission of robbery. Here, though the robbery be not committed, A is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment proved for that offence, and also to fine.

 

(d)

B abets the commission of a robbery by H, a police officer, whose duty it is to prevent that offence. Here though the robbery be not committed, B is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence of robbery, and also to fine.

 

 

117.

Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons:
Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Illustration

A affixes in a public place a placard instigating a sect consisting of more than ten members to meet at a certain time and place, for the purpose of attacking the members of an adverse sect, while engaged in a procession. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

118.

Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life if offence be committed:
Whoever intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life, voluntarily conceals by any act or illegal omission, the existence of design to commit such offence or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design, if offence be not committed, shall, if that offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or, if the offence be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years; and in either case shall also be liable to fine.

Illustration

A, knowing that dacoity is about to be committed at B, falsely inform the Magistrate that a dacoity is about to be committed at C, a place in an opposite direction, and thereby misleads the Magistrate with intent to facilitate the commission of the offence. The dacoity is committed at B in pursuance of the design. A is punishable under this section.

 

119.

Public servant concealing design to commit offence which it is his duty to prevent:
Whoever, being a public servant intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence which it is his duty as such public servant to prevent, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design,

 

if offence be committed:

shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one half of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both;

 

if offence be punishable with death, etc:

or if the offence be punishable with death or imprisonment for life with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years;

 

if offence be not committed:

or, if the offence be not committed, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of such imprisonment or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

 

Illustration

A, an officer of police, being legally bound to give information of all design as to commit robbery, which may come to his knowledge, and knowing that B designs to commit robbery, omits to give such information, with intent to facilitate the commission of that of that offence. Here A has by an illegal omission concealed the existence of B’s design, and is liable to punishment according to the provisions of this section.

 

120.

Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment:
Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design,

 

if offence be committed; if offence be not committed:

shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth, and, if the offence be not committed, to one-eighth, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

 

 27[


V-A

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

120-A

Definition of criminal conspiracy:
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,

(1)

an illegal act, or

(2)

an act which is not illegal by illegal means such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

 

120-B

Punishment of criminal conspiracy:

(1)

Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

 

(2)

Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

 

 

] 27


VI

OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE

121.

Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against Pakistan:
Whoever wages war against Pakistan, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Illustration

A joins an insurrection against Pakistan. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

 28[

121-A

Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by Section 121:
Whoever within or without Pakistan conspires to commit any of the offences punishable by Section 121, or to deprive Pakistan of the sovereignty of her territories or of any part thereof, or conspires to overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Federal Government or any Provincial Government, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: To constitute a conspiracy under this section, it is not necessary that any act or illegal omission shall take place in pursuance thereof.

 

] 28

122.

Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against Pakistan:
Whoever collects men, arms or ammunition or otherwise prepares to wage war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against Pakistan, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

123.

Concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war:
Whoever, by any act, or by any illegal omission, conceals the existence of a design to wage war against Pakistan, intending by such concealment to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that such concealment will facilitate the waging of such war, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

 29[

123-A

Condemnation of the creation of the State, and advocacy of abolition of its sovereignty:

(1)

Whoever, within or without Pakistan, with intent to influence, or knowing it to be likely that he will influence, any person or the whole or any section of the public, in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the safety 2[or ideology] of Pakistan or to endanger the sovereignty of Pakistan in respect of all or any of the territories lying within its borders, shall by words, spoken or written, or by signs or visible representation abuse Pakistan or, condemn the creation of Pakistan by virtue of the partition of India which was effected on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, or. advocate the curtailment or abolition of the sovereignty of Pakistan in respect of all or any of the territories lying within its borders, whether by amalgamation with the territories of neighbouring States or otherwise, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

 

(2)

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, when any person is proceeded against under this section, it shall be lawful for any Court before which he may be produced in the course of the investigation or trial, to make such order as it may think fit in respect of his movements, of his association or communication with other persons, and of his activities in regard to dissemination of news, propagation of opinions, until such time as the case is finally decided.

 

(3)

Any Court which is a Court of appeal or of revision in relation to the Court mentioned in sub-section (2) may also make an order under that sub-section.

 

 

] 29
 30[

123-B

Defiling or unauthorisedly removing the National Flag of Pakistan from Government building, etc.:
Whoever deliberately defiles the National Flag of Pakistan, or unauthorisedly removes if from any building, premises, vehicle or other property of Government, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

 

] 30

124.

Assaulting President, Governor, etc., with intention to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power:
Whoever, with the intention of including or compelling the President of Pakistan, or the Governor of any Province, to exercise or refrain from exercise in any manner of the lawful powers of the President, or Governor, assaults, or wrongfully restrains, or attempts wrongfully to restrain or overawes, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, or attempts so to overawe, the President, or Governor, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

 31[

124-A

Sedition:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Federal or Provincial Government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation 1: The expression “.disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2: Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3: Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

 

] 31

125.

Waging war against any  32[] 32 Power in alliance with Pakistan:
Whoever wages war against the Government of any  33[] 33 Power in alliance or at peace with Pakistan or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

 

126.

Committing depredation on territories of Power at peace with Pakistan:
Whoever commits depredation, or makes preparations to commit depredation, on the territories of any power, in alliance, at a peace with Pakistan, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine and forfeiture of any property used or intended to be used in committing such depredation, or acquired by such depredation.

 

127.

Receiving property taken by war or depredation mentioned in Sections 125 and 126:
Whoever receives any property knowing the same to have been taken in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in Sections 125 and 126, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine and forfeiture of the property so received.

 

128.

Public servant voluntarily allowing prisoner of State or war to escape:
Whoever, being a public servant and having the custody of any State prisoner or prisoner of war, voluntarily allows such prisoner to escape from any place in which such prisoner is confined, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

129.

Public servant negligently suffering such prisoner to escape:
Whoever, being a public servant and having the custody of any State prisoner or prisoner of war negligently suffers such prisoner to escape from any place of confinement in which such prisoner is confined, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

130.

Aiding escape of, rescuing or harbouring such prisoner:
Whoever, knowingly aids or assists any State prisoner or prisoner of war in escaping from lawful custody, or rescues or attempts to rescue any such prisoner; or harbours or conceals any such prisoner who has escaped from lawful custody, or offers or attempts to offer any resistance to the recapture of such prisoner shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also he liable to fine.

Explanation: A State prisoner or prisoner of war, who is permitted to be at large on his parole within certain limits in Pakistan, is said to escape from lawful custody if he goes beyond the limits within which he is allowed to be at large.

 


VII

OF OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE

131.

Abetting mutiny, or attempting to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his duty:
Whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of Pakistan, or attempts to seduce any such officer, soldier, sailor, or airman from his allegiance of his duty, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 34[Explanation: In this section, the words “officer”, “soldier”, “sailor” or “airman” include any person subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (XXXIX of 1952), or the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961 (XXXV of 1961), or the Pakistan Air Force Act. 1953 (VI of 1953), as the case may be.] 34

 

132.

Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof:
Whoever abets committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of Pakistan, shall, if mutiny be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with death or with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

133.

Abetment of assault by soldier, sailor or airman on his superior officer, when in execution of his office:
Whoever abets an assault by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of Pakistan, on any superior officer being in the execution of his office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

134.

Abetment of such assault, if the assault is committed:
Whoever abets an assault by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of Pakistan, on any superior officer being in the execution of his office,, shall, if such assault be committed in consequence of that abetment be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

135.

Abetment of desertion of soldier, sailor or airman:
Whoever abets the desertion of any officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of Pakistan, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

136.

Harbouring deserter:
Whoever, except as hereinafter excepted, knowing or having reason to believe that an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of Pakistan, has deserted, harbours such officer, soldier, sailor or airman, shall be punished with imprisonment’ of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Exception: This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour is given by a wife to her husband.

 

137.

Deserter concealed on board merchant vessel through negligence of master:
The master or person incharge of a merchant vessel, on board of which any deserter from the Army, Navy or Air Force of Pakistan is concealed, shall, though ignorant of such concealment, be liable to a penalty not exceeding  35[one thousand five hundred rupees] 35, if he might have known of such concealment but for some neglect of his duty as such master or person in charge, or but for some want of discipline on board of the vessel.

 

138.

Abetment of act of insubordination by soldier, sailor or airman:
Whoever abets what he knows to be an act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of Pakistan, shall, if such act of insubordination be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

 36[] 36
 37[

139.

Persons subject to certain Acts:
No person subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (XXXIX of 1952), the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953 (VI of 1953), or the Pakistan Navy Ordinance. 1961 (XXXV of 1961), is subject to punishment under this Code for any of the offences defined in this Chapter.

 

] 37

140.

Wearing garb or carrying token used by soldier, sailor or airman:
Whoever, not being a soldier, sailor or airman in the Military, Navel or Air Service of Pakistan, wear, any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by such a soldier, sailor or airman with the intention that it may be believed that he is such a soldier, sailor or airman shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to  38[one thousand five hundred rupees] 38, or with both.

 


VIII

OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILLITY

141.

Unlawful assembly:
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly” if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:-

First:

To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Federal or any Provincial Government or Legislature, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second:

To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process, or

Third:

To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth:

By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

Fifth:

By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation: An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

 

142.

Being member of unlawful assembly:
Whoever being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of any unlawful assembly.

 

143.

Punishment:
Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

144.

Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon:
Whoever, being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful assembly/shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

145.

Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse:
Whoever joins or continues in an unlawful assembly, knowing that such unlawful assembly has been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

146.

Rioting:
Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

 

147.

Punishment for rioting:
Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

148.

Rioting, armed with deadly weapon:
Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

 

149.

Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object:
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

 

150.

Hiring, or conniving at hiring, of persons to join unlawful assembly:
Whoever hires or engages, or employs, or promotes, or connives at the hiring engagement or employment of any person to join or become a member of any unlawful assembly, shall be punishable as a member of such Unlawful assembly, and for any offence which may be committed by any such person as a member of such unlawful assembly in pursuance of such hiring, engagement or employment, in the same manner as if he had been a member of such unlawful assembly, or himself had committed such offence.

 

151.

Knowingly joining or continuing in assembly of five or more persons after it has commanded to disperse:
Whoever knowingly joins or continues in any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, after such assembly has been lawfully commanded to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine, or with both.

Explanation: If the assembly is an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141, the offender will be punished under Section 145.

 

152.

.Assaulting to obstructing public servant when suppressing riot, etc.:
Whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both.

 

153.

Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot

 

if rioting be committed; if not committed:

Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, lives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence if rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

 

 

 39[

153-A.

Promoting enmity between different groups, etc.:
Whoever

(a)

by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or incites, or attempts to promote or incite, on grounds of religion, race, place of both, residence. language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or

(b)

commits, or incites any other person to commit, any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or any group of persons identifiable as such on any ground whatsoever and which disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquillity; or

(c)

organizes, or incites any other person to organize, and exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in any such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in any such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or participates, or incites any other person to participate, in any such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in any such activity will use or be trained, to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste of community or any group of persons identifiable as such on any ground whatsoever and any such activity for any reason whatsoever cause or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community. shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.

Explanation: It does not amount to an offence within the meaning of this section to point but, without malicious intention and with an honest view to their removal, matters which are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of enmity or hatred between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.

 

153-B.

Inducing students, etc., take part in political activity:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise, induce or attempts to induce any student, or any class of students, or any institution interested in or connected with students, to take part in any political activity which disturbs or undermines, or is likely disturb or undermine, the public order shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years or –with fine or with both.

 

] 39

154.

Owner or occupier of land on which an unlawful assembly is held:
Whenever any unlawful assembly or riot takes place, the owner or occupier of the land upon which unlawful assembly is held, or such riot is committed, and any person having or claiming an interest in such land, shall be punishable with fine not exceeding  40[three thousand rupees] 40, if he or his agent or manager, knowing that such offence is being or has been committed, or having reason to believe it is likely to be committed, do not give the earliest notice thereof in his or their power to the principal officer at the nearest police station, and do not, in the case of his or their having reason to believe that it was about to be committed, use all lawful means in his or their power to prevent it and, in the event of its taking place, do not use all lawful means in his or their power to disperse or suppress the riot or unlawful assembly.

 

155.

Liability of person for whose benefit riot is committed:
Whenever a riot is committed for the benefit or on behalf of any person who is the owner or occupier of any land respecting which such riot takes place or who claims any interest in such land, or in the subject of any dispute which gave rise to the riot, or who has accepted or derived ‘any benefit there from, such person shall be punishable with fine, if he or his agent or manager, having reason to believe that such riot was likely to be committed or that the unlawful assembly by which such riot was committed was likely to be held, shall not respectively use all lawful means in his or their power to prevent such assembly or riot from taking place, and for suppressing and dispersing the same.

 

156.

Liability of agent of owner or occupier for whose benefit riot is committed:
Whenever a riot is committed for the benefit or on behalf of any person who is the owner or occupier of any land respecting which such riot takes place, or who claims any interest in such land, or in the subject of any dispute which give rise to the riot, or who has accepted or derived any benefit there from, the agent or manager of such person shall be punishable with fine, if such agent or manager, having reason to believe that such riot was likely to be committed or that the Unlawful assembly by which such riot was committed was likely to be held, shall not use all lawful means in his power to prevent such riot or assembly from taking place and for suppressing and dispersing the same.

 

157.

Harbouring persons hired for an unlawful assembly:
Whoever harbours, receives or assembles, in any house or premises in his occupation or charge, or under his control any persons knowing that such persons have been hired, engaged or employed, or are about to be hired, engaged or employed, to join or become members of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

158.

Being hired to take part in an unlawful assembly or riot:
Whoever is engaged or hired, or offers or attempts to be hired or engaged, to do or assist in doing any of the acts specified in Section 141, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both,

 

or to go armed:

and whoever, being so engaged or aforesaid, goes armed, or engages or offers to go armed, with any deadly weapon or with anything which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

159.

Affray:
When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray.

 

160.

Punishment for committing affray:
Whoever commits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to  41[three thousand rupees] 41, or with both.

 


IX

OF OFFENCES BY OR RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVANTS

161.

Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect to an official act:
Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains, agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Federal, or any Provincial Government or Legislature or with any public servant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.

Explanation:

 

“Expecting to be a public servant”:

If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.

 

 

 

“Gratification”:

The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications, or to gratifications estimable in money.

 

 

 

“Legal remuneration”:

The words “legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration, which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the authority by which he is employed, to accept.

 

 

 

“A motive or reward for doing”:

A person who receives gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has done, comes within these words.

 

 

 

 42[

“Public servant”:

In this section and in Sections 162, 63, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 and 409, ‘public servant’ includes an employee of any corporation or other body or organisation set up, controlled or administered by, or under the authority of, the Federal Government.] 42

 

 

 

Illustrations

(a)

A, a munsif, obtains from Z, a banker, a situation in Z’s bank for A’s brother, as a reward to A for deciding a case in favour of Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

(b)

A, holding the office of Consul at the Court of a Foreign Power accepts a lakh of rupees from the Minister of that Power. It does not appear, that A accepted this sum as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any particular official act, or for rendering or attempting to render any particular service to that Power, with the Government of Pakistan. But it does appear that A accepted the sum as a motive or reward for generally showing favour in the exercise of his official functions to that Power. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

(c)

A, a public servant, induces Z erroneously to believe that A’s influence with the Government has obtained a title for Z and thus induces Z to give A money as a reward for this service. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

 

162.

Taking gratification, in order by corrupt or illegal means to influence public servant:
Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Federal or any Provincial Government or Legislature, or with any public servant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

 

163.

Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant:
Whoever accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, as a motive or reward for inducing, by the exercise of personal influence, any public servant to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Federal or any Provincial Government or Legislature, or with any public servant, as such, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Illustration

An advocate who receives a fee for arguing a case before a Judge; a person who receives pay for arranging and correcting a memorial addressed to Government, setting forth the service and claims of the memorialist, a paid agent for a condemned criminal, who lays before the Government statements tending to show that the condemnation was unjust, are not within this section, inasmuch as they do not exercise or profess to exercise personal influence.

 

164.

Punishment for abetment by public servant of offences defined in Section 162 or 163:
Whoever, being a public Servant, in respect of whom either of the offences defined in the last two preceding sections is committed, abets the offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.

Illustration

A is a public servant. B, A’s wife receives a present as a motive for soliciting A to give an office to a particular person. A abets her doing so. B is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or with fine or with both. A is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

 

165.

Public servant obtaining valuable thing, without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant:
Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for himself, or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Illustrations

(a)

A, a Collector, hires, a house of Z, who has a settlement case pending before, him. It is agreed that A shall pay fifty rupees a month, the house being such that, if the bargain were made in good faith, A would be required to pay two hundred rupees a month. A has obtained a valuable thing from Z without adequate consideration.

 

(b)

A, a Judge, buys of Z, who has a case pending in A’s Court, Government promissorynotes at a discount, when they are selling in the market at a premium. A has obtained a valuable thing from Z without adequate consideration.

 

(c)

Z’s brother is apprehended and taken before A a Magistrate, on a charge of perjury. A sells to Z shares in a bank at a premium, when they are selling in the market at a discount. Z pays A for the shares accordingly. The money so obtained by A is a valuable thing obtained by him without adequate consideration.

 

 

 43[

165-A

Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Sections 161 and 165:
Whoever abets any offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 shall, whether the offence abetted is or is not committed in consequence of the abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

 

] 43
 44[

165-B

Certain abettors excepted:
A person shall be deemed not to abet an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 if he is induced, compelled, coerced, or intimidated to offer or give any such gratification as is referred to in Section 161 for any of the purposes mentioned therein, or any valuable thing without consideration, or for an inadequate consideration, to any such public servant as is referred to in Section 165.

 

] 44

166.

Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person:
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Illustration

A, being an officer directed by law to take property in execution, in order to satisfy a decree pronounced in Z’s favour by a Court of Justice, knowingly disobeys that direction of law, with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause injury to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

167.

Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury:
Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document, frames or translates that document in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

 

168.

Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade:
Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant not to engage in trade, engages in trade shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

 

169.

Public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property:
Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant, not to purchase or bid for certain property, purchases or bids for that property, either in his own name or in the name of another, or jointly, or in shares with other, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and the property, if purchased, shall be confiscated.

 

170.

Personating a public servant:
Whoever, pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

171.

Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent:
Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to three months, or which may extend to  45[six hundred rupees] 45, or with both.

 

 46[


IX-A

OF OFFENCES RELATING TO ELECTIONS

171-A

“Candidate”, “Electoral right” defined:
For the purposes of this Chapter:

(a)

“candidate” means a person who has been nominated as a candidate at any election and includes a person who, when an election is in contemplation, holds himself out as a prospective candidate thereat: provided he is subsequently nominated as a candidate at such election;

(b)

“electoral right” means the right of a person to stand, or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being, a candidate or to vote or refrain from voting at an election.

 

171-B.

Bribery:

(1)

Whoever--

(i)

gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or

(ii)

accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right, or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right, commit the offence of bribery;

Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under the section.

 

(2)

A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.

 

(3)

A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.

 

 

171-C

Undue influence at election:

(1)

Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election.

 

(2)

Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), whoever:-

(a)

threatens any candidate or voter, or” any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with injury of any kind, or

(b)

induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of spiritual censure,

shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub-section (1).

 

(3)

A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this section.

 

 

171-D.

Personation at elections:
Whoever at an election applies for a voting paper or votes in the nature of any other person, whether living or dead, or in a fictitious name, or who having voted once at such election applies at the same election for a voting paper in his own name, and whoever abets, procures or attempts to procure the voting by any person in any such way, commits the offence of personation at an election.

 

171-E.

Punishment for bribery:
Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term-which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both;

Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.

Explanation: ‘Treating’ means that form of bribery where the gratification consist in food, drink, entertainment, or provision.

 

171-F.

Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election:
Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

 

171-G.

False statement in connection with an election:
Whoever with intent to affect the result of an election makes or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with fine.

 

171-H.

Illegal payments in connection with an election:
Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorises expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to  
47[one thousand five hundred rupees] 47:

Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses where incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate.

 

171-I.

Failure to keep election accounts:
Whoever being required by any law for the time being in force or any rule having the force of law to keep accounts of expenses incurred at or in connection with an election fails to keep such accounts shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.

 

 48[

171-J.

Inducing any person not to participate in any election or referendum, etc.:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, induces or directly or indirectly, persuades or instigates, any person not to participate in, or to boycott, any election or referendum, or not to exercise his right of vote thereat, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five lac rupees, or with both.

 

] 48] 46


X

OF CONTEMPTS OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

172.

Absconding to avoid service of summons or other proceeding:
Whoever absconds in order to avoid being served with a summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such -summons, notice or order, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to  49[one thousand five hundred rupees] 49, or with both; or, if the summons or notice or order is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  50[three thousand rupees] 50, or with both.

 

173.

Preventing service of summons or other proceeding, or preventing publication thereof:
Whoever in any manner intentionally prevents the serving on himself, or on other person, of any summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order, or intentionally prevents the lawful affixing to any place of any such summons, notice or order, or intentionally removes any such summons, notice or order, from any place to which it is lawfully affixed, or intentionally prevents the lawful making of any proclamation, under the authority of any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to direct such proclamation to be made, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to  51[one thousand five hundred rupees] 51, or with both; or if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  52[three thousand rupees] 52, or with both.

 

174.

Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant:
Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time, departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to  53[one thousand five hundred rupees] 53, or with both; or, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  54[three thousand rupees] 54, or with both; or, if the proclamation be under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Illustrations

(a)

A, being legally bound to appear before the High Court of  55[Sind] 55 in obedience to a subpoena issuing from that Court, intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

(b)

A, being legally bound to appear before a Zila Judge as a witness in obedience to a summons issued by that Zila Judge, intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

 

175.

Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it:
Whoever being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to  56[one thousand five hundred rupees] 56, or with both; or, if the document is to be produced or delivered up to Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  57[three thousand rupees] 57, or with both.

Illustration

A, being legally bound to produce a document before a Zila Court, intentionally omits to produce the same. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

176.

Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it:
Whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits to give such notice or to furnish such information in the manner and at the time required by law, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to  58[one thousand five hundred rupees] 58, or with both; or, if the notice or information required to be given respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both; or, if the notice or information required to be given is required by an order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 565 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898) with imprisonment, of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  59[three thousand rupees] 59, or with both.

 

177.

Furnishing false information:
Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  60[three thousand rupees] 60, or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Illustrations

(a)

A, a landholder, knowing of the commission of a murder within the limits of his estate, wilfully misinforms the Magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in consequence of the bite of a snake. A is guilty of the offence defined in this section.

 

(b)

A, a village watchman, knowing that a considerable body of strangers has passed through his village in order to commit a dacoity in the house of Z a wealthy merchant residing in a neighbouring place, and being bound, under Clause 5, Section VII, Regulation III, 1821, of the Bengal Code to give early and punctual information of the above fact to the officer, of the nearest police station, wilfully misinforms the police-officer that a body of suspicious characters passed through the village with a view to commit dacoity in a certain distinct place in a different direction. Here A is guilty of the offence defined in the latter part of this section.

 

Explanation: In Section 176 and in this section the word “offence” includes any act committed at any place out of Pakistan, which, if committed in Pakistan, would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395; 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450. 457, 458, 459 and 460; and the word “offender” includes any person who is alleged to have been guilty of any such act.

 

178.

Refusing oath or affirmation when duly required by public servant to make it:
Whoever refuses to bind himself by an oath or affirmation to state the truth, when required so to bind himself by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall so bind himself, shall be punished with simple imprisonment far a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  61[three thousand rupees] 61, or with both.

 

179.

Refusing to answer public servant authorised to question:
Whoever, being legally bound to state the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant in the exercise of the legal, powers of such public servant shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  62[three thousand rupees] 62 rupees, or with both.

 

180.

Refusing to sign statement:
Whoever refuses to sign any statement made by him, when required to sign that statement by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall sign that statement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  63[one thousand] 63, or with both.

 

181.

False statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or person authorised to administer an oath or affirmation:
Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or affirmation to state the truth on any subject to any public servant or other person authorized by law to administer such oath or affirmation, makes, to such public servant or other person as aforesaid, touching that subject any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

182.

False information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person:
Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant :-

(a)

to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b)

to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  64[three thousand rupees] 64, or with both.

Illustrations

(a)

A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police-officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or misconduct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

(b)

A falsely informs a public servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret place, knowing such information to be false, and knowing that it is likely that the consequence of the information will be a search of premises, attended with annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 

(c)

A falsely informs a policeman that he has been assaulted and robbed in the neighbourhood of a particular village. He does not mention the name of any person as one of his assailants, but knows it to be likely that in consequence of their information the police will make enquiries and institute searches in the village to the annoyance of the villagers or some of them. A has committed an offence under this section.

 

 

183.

Resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant:
Whoever offers any resistance to the taking of any property by the lawful authority of any public servant, knowing or having reason to believe that he is such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  65[three thousand rupees] 65, or with both.

 

184.

Obstructing sale of property offered for sale by authority of public servant:
Whoever intentionally obstructs any sale of property offered for sale by the lawful authority of any public servant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to  66[one thousand five hundred rupees] 66 rupees, or with both.

 

185.

Illegal purchase or bid for property offered for sale by authority of public servant:
Whoever, at any sale of property held by the lawful authority of a public servant, as such, purchases or bids for any property on account of any person, whether himself or “any other, whom he knows to be under a legal incapacity to purchase that property at that sale, or bids for such property not intending to perform the obligations under which he lays himself by such bidding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to  67[six hundred rupees] 67 rupees, or with both.

 

186.

Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions:
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to  68[one thousand five hundred rupees] 68, or with both.

 

187.

Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance:
Whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to  69[six hundred rupees] 69, or with both; and if such assistance, be demanded of him by public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purposes of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or of suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  70[one thousand five hundred rupees] 70, or with both.

 

188.

Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant:
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to  71[six hundred rupees] 71, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human’ life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  72[three thousand rupees] 72, or with both.

Explanation: It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce harm.

 

Illustration

An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A, knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in the section.

 

189.

Threat of injury to public servant:
Whoever holds out any threat of injury to any public servant, or to any person in whom he believes that public servant to be interested, for the purpose of inducing that public servant to do any act or to forbear or delay to do any act, connected with the exercise of the public functions of such public servant shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

190.

Threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant:
Whoever holds out any threat of injury to any person for the purpose of inducing that person to refrain or desist from making a legal application for protection against any injury to any public servant legally empowered as such to give such protection, or to cause such protection to be given, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

 


XI

OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE

191.

Giving false evidence:
Whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.

Explanation 1: A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.

Explanation 2: A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know.

 

Illustrations

(a)

A, in support of a just claim which B has against Z for one thousand rupees, falsely swear on a trial that he heard Z admit the justice of B’s claim- A has given false evidence.

 

(b)

A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he believes a certain signature to be the handwriting of Z, when he does not believe it to be the handwriting of Z. Here A states that which he knows to be false, and therefore gives false evidence.

 

(c)

A, knowing the general character of Z’s handwriting, states that he believes a certain signature to be the handwriting of Z. A in good faith believing it to be so. Here A’s statement is merely as to his believe, and is true as to his belief, and therefore although the signature may not be handwriting of Z, A has not given false evidence.

 

(d)

A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he knows that Z was at a particular place on a particular day, not knowing anything upon the subject, A gives false evidence whether Z was at that place on the day named or not.

 

(e)

A, an interpreter or translator, gives or certifies, as a true interpretation or translation of a statement, which he is bound by oath to interpret or translate truly, that which is not and which he does not believe to be a true interpretation or translation. A has given false evidence.

 

 

192.

Fabricating false evidence:
Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or makes any document containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said to fabricate false evidence.

Illustrations

(a)

A puts jewels into a box belonging to Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box, and that this circumstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated.

 

(b)

A makes a false entry in his shop-book for the purpose of using it as corroborative evidence in a Court of Justice. A has fabricated false evidence.

 

(c)

A, with the intention of causing Z to be convicted of a criminal conspiracy, writes a letter in imitation of Z’s handwriting, purporting to be addressed to an accomplice in such criminal conspiracy, and puts the letter in a place which he knows that the officers of the Police are likely to search. A has fabricated false evidence.

 

 

193.

Punishment for false evidence:
Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall, be punished with imprisonment of either description” for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1: A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding.

Explanation 2: An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. 73[] 73

Explanation 3: An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding/though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.

Illustration

A, in an enquiry before an officer deputed by a Court of Justice to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence.

 

194.

Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence:
Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause any person to be convicted on an offence which is capital by any law for the time being in force, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; if innocent person be thereby convicted and executed : and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described.

 

195.

Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or for a term of seven years or upwards:
Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause any person to be convicted of an offence which by any law for the time being in force is not capital, but punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished.

Illustration

A gives false evidence before a Court of Justice, intending thereby to cause Z to be convicted of a dacoity. The punishment of dacoity is imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term, which may extend to ten years, with or without fine. A, therefore, is liable to such imprisonment for life or imprisonment with or without fine.

 

196.

Using evidence known to be false:
Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence, any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence.

 

197.

Issuing or signing false certificate:
Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

 

198.

Using as true a certificate known to be false:
Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

 

199.

False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence:
Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object-for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

 

200.

Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false:
Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

Explanation: A declaration, which is inadmissible merely upon the ground of some informality, is a declaration within the meaning of Sections 199 and 200.

 

201.

Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender:
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;

 

if a capital offence:

shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

 

if punishable with imprisonment for life:

and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine:

 

if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment:

and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longer term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

 

Illustration

A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening 6 from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine.

 

202.

Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform:
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which, he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

203.

Giving false information respecting an offence committed:
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation: In Sections 201 and 202 in this section the word “offence” includes any act committed at any place out of Pakistan, which, if committed in Pakistan, would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459, and 460.

 

204.

Destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence:
Whoever Secrets or destroys any document which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such document with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court, or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both.

 

205.

False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution:
Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both.

 

206.

Fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution:
Whoever fraudulently removes, conceals, transfers or delivers to any person any property or any interest therein, intending thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being taken as a forfeiture or in satisfaction of a fine, under a sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to be likely to be pronounced, by a Court of Justice or other competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a decree or order which has been made, or which he knows to be likely to be made by a Court of Justice in a civil suit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

207.

Fraudulent claim to property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution:
Whoever fraudulently accepts, receives or claims any property or any interest therein, knowing that he has no right or rightful claim to such property or interest, or practises any deception touching any right to any property or any interest therein, intending thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being taken as a forfeiture or in satisfaction of a fine, under a sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to be likely to be pronounced by a Court of Justice or other competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a decree or order which has been made, or which he knows to be likely to be made by a Court of Justice in a civil suit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which’ may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

208.

Fraudulently suffering decree for sum not due:
Whoever fraudulently causes or suffers a decree or order to be passed against him at the suit of any person for a sum not due, or for a larger sum than is due to such person or for any property or interest in property to which such person is not entitled, or fraudulently causes or suffers a decree or order to be executed against him after it has been satisfied, or for anything in respect of which it has been satisfied, shall be’ punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Illustration

A institutes a suit against Z. Z, knowing that A is likely to obtain a decree against him fraudulently suffers a judgment to pass against him for a larger amount at the Suit of B, who has no just claim against him, in order that B, either on his own account or for the benefit of Z, may share in the proceeds of any sale of Z’s property which may be made under A’s decree. Z has committed an offence under this section.

 

209.

Dishonestly making false claim in Court:
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

210.

Fraudulently obtaining decree for sum not due:
Whoever fraudulently obtains a decree or order against any person for a sum not due, or for a larger sum than is due, or for any property or interest in property to which he is not entitled, or fraudulently causes a decree or order to be executed against any person after it has been satisfied or for anything in respect of which it has been satisfied, or fraudulently, suffers or permits any such act to be done in his name, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

211.

False charge of offence made with intent to injure:
Whoever with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed as offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

212.

Harbouring offender:
Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment,

 

if a capital offence:

shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine,

 

if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment:

and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

“Offence” in this section includes, any act committed at any place out of Pakistan, which, if committed in Pakistan, would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399. 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459, and 460 and every such act shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in Pakistan.

Exception: This provision shall not extend to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the offender.

 

Illustration

A knowing that B has committed dacoity, knowingly conceals S in order to screen him legal punishment. Here, as S is liable to imprisonment for life, A is liable to imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding three years, and is liable to fine.

 

213.

Taking gift, etc., to screen an offender from punishment:
Whoever accepts or attempts to obtain, or agrees to accept, any gratification for himself or any other person, or any restitution of property to himself or any other person, in consideration of his concealing an offence or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment;

 

if a capital offence:

shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

 

if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment:

and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for offence, or with fine, or with both.

 

214.

Offering gift or restoration of property in consideration of screening offender:
Whoever gives or causes or offers or agrees to give or cause, any gratification to any person, or to restore or cause the restoration of any property to any person, in consideration of that person’s concealing an offence, or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment;

 

if a capital offence:

shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

 

if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment:

and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment not extending to fen years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

Exception: The provisions of Sections 213 and 214 do not extend to any case in which the offence may lawfully be compounded.

 74[] 74

 

215.

Taking gift to help to recover property, etc.:
Whoever takes or agrees or consents to take any gratification under pretence or on account of helping any person to recover any movable property of which he shall have been deprived by any offence punishable under this Code, shall, unless he uses all means in his power to cause the offender to be apprehended and convicted of the offence, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

216.

Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered:
Whenever any person convicted of, or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that is to say;

 

if a capital offence:

if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

 

if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment:

if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence or with fine, or with both.

“Offence” in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of Pakistan which, if he had been guilty of it in Pakistan would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in Pakistan, and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in Pakistan.

Exception: This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the person to be apprehended.

 

 75[

216-A

Penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits:
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that any persons are about to commit or have recently committed robbery or dacoity, harbours them or any of them, with the intention of facilitating the commission of such robbery or dacoity, or of screening them or any of them from punishment, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: For the- purposes of this Section it is immaterial whether the robbery or dacoity is intended to be committed, or has been committed, within or without Pakistan.

Exception: This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour is by the husband or wife of the offender.

 

] 75
 76[] 76

217.

Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save persons from punishment or property from forfeiture:
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

218.

Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture:
Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record ‘or writing-in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.

 

219.

Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law:
Whoever being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

 

220.

Commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows that he is acting contrary to law:
Whoever, being in any office which gives him legal authority to commit persons for trial or to confinement, or to keep persons in confinement, corruptly or maliciously commits any person for trial or confinement, or keeps any person in confinement, in the exercise of that authority, knowing that in so doing he is acting contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

 

221.

Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend:
Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to. escape, or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished as follows, that is to say--

 

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with death; or

 

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years; or

 

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term less than ten years.

 

222.

Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed:
Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep to confinement any person under sentence of a Court of Justice for any offence or lawfully committed to custody, intentionally, omits, to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished as follows that is to say;

 

with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, is under sentence of death; or

 

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended is subject by a sentence, of a Court of Justice, or by virtue of a commutation of such sentence, to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or upwards; or

 

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended is subject, by a sentence of a Court of Justice, to imprisonment for a term not extending to ten years or if the person was lawfully committed to custody.

 

223.

Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant:
Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to keep in confinement any person charged with or convicted of any offence or lawfully committed to custody, negligently suffers such persons to escape from confinement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

224.

Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension:
Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted; or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation: The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he was convicted.

 

225.

Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person:
Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence, or rescue or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

 

or, if the person to be apprehended, or the person rescued or attempted to be rescued, is charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;

 

or, if the person to be apprehended or, rescued, or attempted to be rescued, is charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

 

or, if the person to be apprehended or rescued or attempted to be rescued, is liable under the sentence of a Court of Justice, or by virtue of a commutation of such a sentence, to imprisonment for life or imprisonment, for a term of ten years or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

 

or, if the person to be apprehended or rescued, or attempted to be rescued, is under sentence of death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

 77[

225-A.

Omission to apprehend, or sufferance of escape, on part of public servant, in cases not otherwise provided for:
Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to apprehend, or to keep in confinement, any person In any case not provided for in Section 221, Section 222 or Section 223, or in any other law for the time being in force, omits to apprehend that person or suffers him to escape from confinement, shall be punished:

(a)

if he does so intentionally, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both; and

(b)

if he does so negligently, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

225-B.

Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension, or escape or rescue in cases not otherwise provided for:
Whoever, in any case not provided for in Section 224 or Section 225 or in any other law for the time being in force, intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself or of any other person, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

] 77
 78[] 78

227.

Violation of condition of remission of punishment:
Whoever, having accepted any conditional remission of punishment, knowingly violates any condition on which such remission was granted/shall be punished with the punishment to which he was originally sentenced, if he has already suffered no part of that punishment, and if he has suffered any part of that punishment, then with so much of that punishment as he has not already suffered.

 

228.

Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding:
Whoever intentionally offers any insult or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  79[three thousand rupees] 79, or with both.

 

229.

Personation of a Juror or assessor:
Whoever, by personation or otherwise, shall intentionally cause, or knowingly suffer himself to be returned, empanelled or sworn as a juryman or assessor in any case in which he knows that he is not entitled by law to be so returned, empanelled or sworn or knowing himself to have been so returned, empanelled or sworn contrary to law, shall voluntarily serve on such jury or as such assessor, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 


XII

OF OFFENCES RELATING TO COIN AND GOVERNMENT STAMPS

230.

“Coin” defined:
Coin is metal used for the time being as money, and stamped and issued by the authority of some State or Sovereign Power in order to be so used.

Pakistan coin”: Pakistan coin is metal stamped and issued by the authority of the Government of Pakistan in order to be used as money; and metal which has been so stamped and issued shall continue to be Pakistan coin for the purposes of this Chapter, notwithstanding that it may have ceased to be used as money.

 

Illustrations

(a)

Cowries are not coin.

 

(b)

Lumps of unstamped copper, though used as money, are not coin.

 

(c)

Medals are not coin, inasmuch as they are not intended to be used as money.

 

 80[] 80

 

231.

Counterfeiting coin:
Whoever counterfeits or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: A person commits this offence who intending to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised, causes a genuine coin to appear like a different coin.

 

232.

Counterfeiting Pakistan coin:
Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting Pakistan coin, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

233.

Making or selling instrument for counterfeiting coin:
Whoever makes or mends, or performs any part of the process of making or mending, or buys, sells or disposes of, any die or instrument, for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for the purpose of counterfeiting coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

234.

Making or selling instrument for counterfeiting Pakistan coin:
Whoever makes or mends, or performs any part of the process of making or mending or buys, sells or disposes of, any die or instrument, for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for the purpose of counterfeiting Pakistan coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

235.

Possession of instrument or material for the purpose of using the same for counterfeiting coin:
Whoever is in possession of any instrument or material, for the purpose of using the same for counterfeiting coin, or knowing or having reason to believe that the same is intended to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;

 

if Pakistan coin:

and if the coin to be counterfeited is Pakistan coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

236.

Abetting in Pakistan the counterfeiting out of Pakistan of coin:
Whoever, being within Pakistan, abets the counterfeiting of coin out of Pakistan shall be punished in the same manner as if he abetted the counterfeiting of such coin within Pakistan. 237. Import or export of counterfeit coin: Whoever imports into Pakistan, or exports there from, any counterfeit coin, knowingly or having reason to believe that the same is counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

238.

Import or export of counterfeits of Pakistan coin:
Whoever imports into Pakistan, or exports therefrom, any counterfeit coin which he knows or has reason to believe to be a counterfeit of Pakistan coin, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

239.

Delivery of coin, possessed with knowledge that it is counterfeit:
Whoever, having any counterfeit coin, which at the time when he became possessed of it he knew to be counterfeit, fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed, delivers the same to any person, or attempts to induce any. person to receive it, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

240.

Delivery of Pakistan coin possessed with knowledge that it is counterfeit:
Whoever, having any counterfeit coin, which is a counterfeit of Pakistan coin, and which, at the time when he became possessed of it, he knew to be a counterfeit of Pakistan coin, fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed, delivers the same to any person, or attempts to induce any person to receive it, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

241.

Delivery of coin as genuine, which, when first possessed, the deliverer did not know to be counterfeit:
Whoever delivers to any other person as genuine, or attempts to induce any other person to receive as genuine, any counterfeit coin which he knows to be counterfeit, but which he did not know to be counterfeit, as the time when he took it into his possession, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine to an amount which may extend to ten times the value of the coin counterfeited, or with both.

Illustration

A, a coiner, delivers counterfeit  81[] 81 rupees to his accomplice B, for the purpose of uttering them. B sells the rupees to C, another utterer, who buys them knowing them to be counterfeit, C pays away the rupees for goods to D. who receives them, not knowing them to be counterfeit. D after receiving the rupees, discovers that they are counterfeit and pays them away as if they were good. Here D is punishable only under this section, but B and C are punishable under Section 239 or 240, as the case may be.

 

242.

Possession of counterfeit coin by person who knew it to be counterfeit when he became possessed thereof:
Whoever, fraudulently, or with intent that fraud may be committed, is in possession of counterfeit coin, having known at the time when he became possessed thereof that such coin was counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

243.

Possession of Pakistan coin by person who knew it to be counterfeit when he became possessed thereof:
Whoever, fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed, as in possession of counterfeit coin, which is a counterfeit of Pakistan coin, having known at the time when he became possessed of it that it was counterfeit, shall be Punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

244.

Person employed in mint causing coin to be of different weight or composition from that fixed by law:
Whoever, being employed in any mint lawfully established in Pakistan, does any act, or omits what he is legally bound to do, with the intention of causing any coin issued from that mint to be of a different weight or composition from the weight or composition fixed by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

245.

Unlawfully taking coining instrument from mint:
Whoever, without lawful authority, takes out of any mint, lawfully established in Pakistan, any coining tool or instrument, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

246.

Fraudulently or dishonestly diminishing weight or altering composition of coin:
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly performs on any coin any operation, which diminishes the weight or alters the composition of that coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: A person who scoops out part of the coin and puts anything else into the cavity alters the composition of that coin.

 

247.

Fraudulently or dishonestly diminishing weight or altering composition of Pakistan coin:
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly performs on any Pakistan coin, any operation which diminishes the weight or alters the composition of that coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

248.

Altering appearance of coin with intent that it shall pass as coin of different description:
Whoever performs on any coin any operation which alters the appearance of that coin, with the intention that the said coin shall pass as a different description, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

249.

Altering appearance of Pakistan coin with intent that it shall pass as coin of different description:
Whoever performs on any Pakistan coin any operation which alters the appearance of that coin, with the intention that the said coin shall pass as a coin of a different description, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

250.

Delivery of coin, possessed with knowledge that it is altered:
Whoever, having coin in his possession with respect to which the offence defined in Section 246 or 248 has been committed, and having known at the time when he became possessed of such coin that such offence had been committed with respect to it, fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed, delivers such coin to any other person, or attempts to induce any other person to receive the same, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

251.

Delivery of Pakistan coin possessed with knowledge that it is altered:
Whoever, having coin in his possession with respect to which the offence defined in Section 247 or 249 has been committed, and having known at the time when he became possessed of such coin that such offence had been committed with respect to it, fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed, delivers such coin to any other person, or attempts to induce any other person to receive the same, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

252.

Possession of coin by person who knew it to be altered when he became possessed thereof:
Whoever fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed, is in possession of coin with respect to which the offence defined in either of the Section 246 or 248 has been committed, having known at the time of becoming possessed thereof that such offence had been committed with respect to such coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

253.

Possession of Pakistan coin by person who knew it to by altered when he became possessed thereof:
Whoever fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed, is in possession of coin with respect of which the offence, defined in either of Section 247 or 249 has been committed having known at the time of becoming possessed thereof that such offence had been committed with respect to such coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

254.

Delivery of coin as genuine which, when first possessed, the deliverer did not know to be altered:
Whoever delivers to any other person as genuine or as a coin of a different description from what it is, or attempts to induce any person to receive as genuine, or as a different coin from what it is, any coin in respect of which’ he knows that any such operation as that mentioned in Sections 246, 247, 248 or 249 has been performed, but in respect of which he did not, at the time when he took it into his possession, know that such operation had been performed, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine to an amount which may extend to ten times the value of the coin for which the altered coin is passed, or attempted to be passed.

 

255.

Counterfeiting Government stamp:
Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: A person commits this offence who counterfeits by causing a genuine stamp of one denomination to appear like a genuine stamp of a different denomination.

 

256.

Having possession of instrument or material for counterfeiting Government stamp:
Whoever has in his possession any instrument or material for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for the purpose of counterfeiting any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

257.

Making or selling instrument for counterfeiting Government stamp:
Whoever makes or performs any part of the process of making, or buys, or sells, or disposes of, any instrument for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for the purpose of counterfeiting any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

 

258.

Sale of counterfeit Government stamp:
Whoever sells, or offers for sale, any stamp which he knows or has reason to believe to be a counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

259.

Having possession of counterfeit Government stamp:
Whoever has in his possession any stamp which he knows to be a counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, intending to use, or dispose of the same as a genuine stamp, or in order that it may be used as a genuine stamp, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

260.

Using as genuine a Government stamp known to be counterfeit:
Whoever uses as genuine any stamp knowing it to be a counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

 

261.

Effacing writing from substance, Government stamp, or removing from document a stamp used for it, with intent to cause loss to Government:
Whoever fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to the Government, removes or effaces from any substance bearing any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, any writing or document for which such stamp has been used, or removes from any writing or document a stamp which has been used for such writing or document, in order that such stamp may be used for a different writing or document, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to there years, or with fine, or with both.

 

262.

Using Government stamp known to have been before used:
Whoever fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to the Government, uses for any purpose a stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, which he knows to have been before used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

263.

Erasure of mark denoting that has been used:
Whoever, fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to Government, erases or removes from a stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, any mark, put or impressed upon such stamp for the purpose of denoting that the same has been used, or knowingly has in his possession or sells or disposes of any such stamp from which such mark has been erased or removed, or sells or disposes of any such stamp which he knows to have been used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both.

 

 82[

263-A

Prohibition of fictitious stamp:

(l)

Whoever--

(a)

makes, knowingly alters, deals in or sells any fictitious stamp, or knowingly uses for any postal purpose any fictitious stamp, or

(b)

has in his possession, without lawful excuse, any fictitious stamp, or

(c)

makes or, without lawful excuse, has in his possession any die, plate, instrument or materials for making any fictitious stamp, shall be punished with fine which may extend to  83[six hundred rupees] 83.

 

(2)

An such stamp, die, plate, instrument or materials in the possession of any person for making any fictitious stamp may be seized and shall be forfeited.

 

(3)

In this section “fictitious stamp” means any stamp falsely purporting to be issued by Government for the purpose of denoting a rate of postage or any facsimile or imitation or representation, whether on paper or otherwise, of any stamp issued by Government for that purpose.

 

(4)

In this section and also in Sections 255 to 263, both inclusive, the word “Government” when used in connection with, or in reference to, any stamp issued, for the purpose of denoting a rate of postage, shall, notwithstanding anything in Section 17, be deemed to include the person or persons authorised by law to administer executive Government in any part of Pakistan, and also in any foreign country.

 

 

] 82


XIII

OF OFFENCES RELATING TO WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

264.

Fraudulent use of false instrument for weighing:
Whoever fraudulently uses any instrument for weighing which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

 

265.

Fraudulent use of false weight or measure:
Whoever fraudulently uses any false weight or false measure of length or Capacity, or fraudulently uses any weight or any measure of length or capacity as a different weight or measure from what it is, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both.

 

266.

Being in possession of false weight or measure:
Whoever is in possession of any instrument for weighing, or of any weight, or of any measure of length or capacity, which he knows to be false and intending that the same may be fraudulently used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, Or with fine, or with both.

 

267.

Making or selling false weight or measure:
Whoever makes, sells or disposes of any instrument for weighing, or any weight, or any measure of length or capacity which he knows to be false, in order that the same may be used as true, or knowing that the same is likely to be used as true shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

 


XIV

OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE, DECENCY AND MORALS

268.

Public nuisance:
A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.

 

269.

Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life:
Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

270.

Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life:
Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

271.

Disobedience to quarantine rule:
Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Federal or any Provincial Government for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

272.

Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale:
Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, snail be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  84[three thousand rupees] 84, or with both.

 

273.

Sale of noxious food or drink:
Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or haying reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, of with fine which may extend to  85[three thousand rupees] 85, or with both.

 

274.

Adulteration of drugs:
Whoever adulterates any drug or medical preparation-in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy or change the operation of such drug) or medical preparation, or to make it noxious intending that it shall be sold or used for, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold or used for, any medicinal purposes, as if it had not undergone such adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to  86[three thousand rupees] 86, or with both.

 

275.

Sale of adulterated drugs:
Whoever, knowing any drug or medical preparation to have been adulterated in such a manner as to lessen its efficacy, to change its operation, or to render it noxious, sells the same, or offers or exposes it for sale, or issues it from any dispensary for medicinal purposes as unadulterated, or causes it to be used for medicinal purposes by any person not knowing of the adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  87[three thousand rupees] 87, or with both.

 

276.

Sale of drug as a different drug or preparation:
Whoever knowingly sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or issues from a dispensary for medicinal purposes, any drug or medical preparation, as a different drug or medical preparation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  88[three thousand rupees] 88, or with both.

 

277.

Fouling water of public spring or reservoir:
Whoever voluntarily corrupts or fouls the water of any public spring or reservoir, so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to  89[one thousand five hundred rupees] 89, or with both.

 

278.

Making atmosphere noxious to health:
Whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way, shall be punished with fine, which may extend to  90[one thousand five hundred rupees] 90.

 

279.

Rash driving or riding on a public way:
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to  91[two years] 91 or with fine which may extend to  92[three thousand rupees] 92, or with both.

 

280.

Rash navigation of vessel:
Whoever navigates any vessel in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  93[three thousand rupees] 93 or with both.

 

281.

Exhibition of false light, mark or buoy:
Whoever exhibits any false light, mark or buoy intending or knowing it to be likely that such exhibition will mislead any navigator, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

 

282.

Conveying person by water for hire in unsafe or overloaded vessel:
Whoever knowingly or negligently conveys; or causes to be conveyed for hire, any person by water in any vessel, when that vessel is in such a state or so loaded as to endanger the fife of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  94[three thousand rupees] 94, or with both.

 

283.

Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation:
Whoever, by doing any act, or by omitting to take order with any property in his possession or under his charge, causes danger, obstruction or injury to any person in any public way or public line of navigation, shall be punished with fine which may extend to  95[six hundred rupees] 95.

 

284.

Negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance:
Whoever does, with any poisonous substance, any act in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any poisonous substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such poisonous substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to  96[three thousand rupees] 96, or with both.

 

285.

Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter:
Whoever does, with tire or any combustible matter, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any fire or any combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  97[three thousand rupees] 97, or with both.

 

286.

Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance:
Whoever does, with any explosive substance any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  98[three thousand rupees] 98, or with both.

 

287.

Negligent conduct with respect to machinery:
Whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  99[three thousand rupees] 99, or with both.

 

288.

Negligent conduct with respect to pulling down or repairing buildings:
Whoever, in pulling down or repairing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with that building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or of any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  100[three thousand rupees] 100, or with both.

 

289.

Negligent conduct with respect to animal:
Whoever, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to  101[three thousand rupees] 101, or with both.

 

290.

Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for:
Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to  102[six hundred rupees] 102.

 

291.

Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue:
Whoever repeats or continues a public nuisance having been enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to repeat or continue such nuisance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

292.

Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.:
Whoever:-

(a)

sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or

(b)

imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(c)

takes part in or receives profits from, any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are, for any of -the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(d)

advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person he engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or

(e)

offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine or with both.

Exception: This section does not extend to any book, pamphlet, writing, drawing or painting kept or used bona fide for religious purposes or any representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in any temple, or on any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purpose.

 

293.

Sale, etc., of obscene objects to young person:
Whoever sells, lets to hire, distributes, exhibits or circulates to any person under the age of twenty years any such obscene object as is referred to in the last preceding section, or offers or attempts so to do, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

294.

Obscene acts and songs:
Whoever, to the annoyance of others, --

(a)

does any obscene act in any public place, or

(b)

sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words, in or near any public place,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

 

 103[

294-A.

Keeping lottery office:
Whoever keeps any office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery not being a State lottery or a lottery authorized by the Provincial Government shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

And whoever publishes any proposal to pay any sum, or to deliver any goods, or to do or forbear doing anything for the benefit of any person, on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the drawing of any ticket, lot, number or figure in any such lottery shall be punished with fine which may extend to  104[three thousand rupees] 104.

 

] 103
 105[

294-B.

Offering of prize in connection with trade, etc.:
Whoever offers, or undertakes to offer, in connection with any trade or business or sale of any commodity, any prize, reward or other similar consideration, by whatever name called, whether in money or kind, against any coupon, ticket, number or figure, or by any other device, as an inducement or encouragement to trade or business or to the buying of any commodity, or for the purpose of advertisement or popularising any commodity, and whoever publishes any such offer, shall be punishable, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

 

] 105


XV

OF OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION

295.

Injuring or defiling place of worship, with Intent to insult the religion of any class:
Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction damage or defilement as an insult to their religion. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

 106[

295-A.

Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting Its religion or religious beliefs:
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the ‘religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.

 

] 106
 107[

295-B.

Defiling, etc., of Holy Qur’an:
Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur’an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.

 

] 107
 108[

295-C.

Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

] 108

296.

Disturbing religious assembly:
Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

 

297.

Trespassing on burial places, etc.:
Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sculpture, or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites or as a, depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

 

298.

Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings:
Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.

 

 109[

298-A.

Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of any wife (Ummul Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), or any of the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa-e-Rashideen) or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

 

] 109
 110[

298-B.

Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages or places:

(1)

Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation-

(a)

refers to or addresses, any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as “Ameer-ul-Mumineen”, “Khalifatul- Mumineen”, Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen”, “Sahaabi” or “Razi Allah Anho”;

(b)

refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as “Ummul-Mumineen”;

(c)

refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family “Ahle-bait” of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as “Ahle-bait”; or

(d)

refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship a “Masjid”;

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

(2)

Any person of the Qaudiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves “Ahmadis” or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as “Azan”, or recites Azan as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

 

298-C.

Person of Quadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith:
Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name), who directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

 

] 110 111[


XVI

OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY

 

Of Offences Affecting Life

299.

Definitions:
In this Chapter, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:

(a)

“adult” means a person who has attained the age of eighteen years;

(b)

“arsh” means the compensation specified in this Chapter to be paid to the victim or his heirs under this Chapter;

(c)

“authorised medical officer” means a medical officer or a Medical board, howsoever designated, authorised by the Provincial Government;

(d)

“daman” means the compensation determined by the Court to be paid by the offender to the victim for causing hurt not liable to arsh;

(e)

“diyat” means the compensation specified in Section 323 payable to the heirs of the victim;

(f)

“Government” means the Provincial Government;

(g)

“ikrah-e-tam” means putting any person, his spouse or any of his blood relations within the prohibited degree of marriage in fear of instant death or instant, permanent impairing of any organ of the body or instant fear of being subjected to sodomy or ziha-bil-jabr;

(h)

“ikrah-e-naqis” means any form of duress which does not amount to ikrah-i-tam;

(i)

“minor” means a person who is not an adult;

 

 112[(ii)

“offence committed in the name or on the pretext of honour” means an offence committed in the name or on the pretext of karo kari, siyah kari or similar other customs or practices;] 112

 

(j)

“qatl” means causing death of a person;

(k)

“qisas” means punishment by causing similar hurt at the same part of the body of the convict as he has caused to the victim or by causing his death if he has committed qatl-iamd in exercise Of the right of the victim or a Wali;

(l)

“ta’zir” means purushment other than qisas, diyat, arsh , or daman; and

(m)

“wali” means a person entitled to claim qisas.

 

300.

Qatl-e-Amd:
Whoever, with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing bodily injury to a person, by doing an act which in the ordinary course of nature is likely to cause death, or with-the knowledge that his act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, causes the death of such person, is said to commit qatl-e-amd.

 

301.

Causing death of person other than the person whose death was intended:
Where a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, causes death of any person whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, such an act committed by the offender shall be liable for qatl-i-amd.

 

302.

Punishment of qatl-i-amd:
Whoever commits qatl-e-amd shall, subject to the provisions of this Chapter be:

(a)

punished with death as qisas;

(b)

punished with death or imprisonment for life as ta’zir having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the proof in either of the forms specified in Section 304 is not available; or

(c)

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twenty-five years, where according to the injunctions of Islam the punishment of qisas is not applicable 113[:] 113

 114[

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the offence of qatl-i-amd if committed in the name or on the pretext of honour and the same shall fall within the ambit of (a) and (b), as the case may be.

] 114

 

303.

Qatl committed under ikrah-i-tam or ikrah-i-naqis:
Whoever commits qatl:

(a)

under Ikrah-i-tam shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-five years but shall not be less than ten years and the person causing ‘ikrah-i-tam’ shall be punished for the kind of Qatl committed as a consequence of ikrah-i-tam; or

(b)

under ‘ikrah-i-naqis’ shall be punished for the kind of Qatl committed by him and the person, causing ‘ikrah-i-naqis, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years.

 

304.

Proof of qatl-i-amd liable to qisas, etc.:

(1)

Proof of qatl-i-amd shall be in any of the following forms, namely: -

(a)

the accused makes before a Court competent to try the offence a voluntary and true confession of the commission of the offence; or

(b)

by the evidence as provided in Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (P.O. No. 10 of 1984).

 

(2)

The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, mutatis, mutandis, apply to a hurt liable to qisas.

 

 

305.

Wali:
In case of qatl, the wali shall be--

(a)

the heirs of the victim, according to his personal law  115[but shall not include the accused or the convict in case of qatl-i-amd if committed in the name or on the pretext of honour] 115; and

(b)

the Government, if there is no heir.

 

306.

Qatl-e-amd not liable to qisas:
Qatl-i-Amd shall not be liable to qisas in the following cases, namely:--

(a)

when an offender is a minor or insane:

Provided that, where a person liable to qisas associates himself in the commission of the offence with a person not liable to qisas, with the intention of saving himself from qisas, he shall not be exempted from qisas;

(b)

when an offender causes death of his child or grand-child, how low-so-ever; and

(c)

when any wali of the victim is a direct descendant, how low-so-ever, of the offender.

 

307.

Cases in which Qisas for qatl-i-amd shall not be enforced:

(1)

Qisas for qatl-i-amd shall not be enforced in the following cases, namely:--

(a)

when the offender dies before the enforcement of qisas;

(b)

when any wali voluntarily and without duress, to the satisfaction of the Court, waives the right of qisas under Section 309 or compounds under Section 310 and

(c)

when the right of qisas devolves on the offender as a result of the death of the wali of the victim, or on, the person who has no right of qisas against the offender.

 

(2)

To satisfy itself that the wali has waived the right of qisas under Section 309 or compounded the right of qisas under Section 310 voluntarily and without duress the Court shall take down the statement of the wali and such other persons as it may deem necessary on oath and record an opinion that it is satisfied that the Waiver or, as the case may be, the composition, was voluntary and not the result of any duress.

 

 

Illustrations

(i)

A kills Z, the maternal uncle of his son B. Z has no other wali except D the wife of A. D has the right of qisas from A but if D dies, the right of qisas shall devolve on her son B who is also the son of the offender A. B cannot claim qisas against his father. Therefore, the qisas cannot be enforced.

 

(ii)

B kills Z, the brother of their husband A. Z has no heir except A. Here A can claim qisas from his wife B. But if A dies, the right of qisas shall devolve on his son D who is also son of B, the qisas cannot be enforced against B.

 

 

308.

Punishment in qatl-i-amd not liable to qisas, etc.:

(1)

Where an offender guilty of qatl-i-amd is not liable to qisas under Section 306 or the gisas is not enforceable under clause (c) of Section 307, he shall be liable to diyat:

Provided that, where the offender is minor or insane, diyat shall be payable either from his property or, by such person as may be determined by the Court:

Provided further that where at the time of committing qatl-i-amd the offender being a minor, had attained sufficient maturity of being insane, had a lucid interval, so as to be able to realize the consequences of his act, he may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to  116[twenty-five years] 116 as ta’zir.

Provided further that, where the qisas is not enforceable under clause (c) of Section 307, the offender shall be liable to diyat only if there is any wali other than offender and if there is no wali other than the offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to  117[twenty-five years] 117 years as ta’zir.

 

(2)

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (i), the Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in addition to the punishment of diyat, may punish the offender with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to  118[twenty-five years] 118 years, as ta’zir.

 

 

309.

Waiver (Afw) of qisas in qatl-i-amd:

(1)

In the case of qatl-i-amd, an adult sane wali may, at any time and without any compensation, waive his right of qisas:

Provided that the right of qisas shall not be waived;

(a)

where the Government is the wali, or

(b)

where the right of qisas vests in a minor or insane.

 

(2)

Where a victim has more than one Wali any one of them may waive his right of qisas:

Provided that the wali who does not waive the right of qisas shall be entitled to his share of diyat.

 

(3)

Where there are more than one victim, the waiver of the right of qisas by the wali of one victim shall not affect the right of qisas of the wali of the other victim.

 

(4)

Where there are more than one offenders, the waiver of the right of qisas against one offender shall not affect the right of qisas against the other offender.

 

 

310.

Compounding of qisas (Sulh) in qatl-i-amd:

(1)

In the case of qatl-i-amd, an adult sane wali may, at any time on accepting badl-i-sulh, compound his right of qisas:

 119[

Provided that a female shall not be given in marriage or otherwise in badal-i-sulh.

] 119

 

(2)

Where a wali is a minor or an insane, the wali of such minor or insane wali may compound the right of qisas on behalf of such minor or insane wali:

Provided that the value of badf-i-sufh shall not be less than the value of diyat.

 

(3)

Where the Government is the wali, it may compound the right of qisas:

Provided that fee value of badi-i-sulh shall not be less than the value of diyat.

 

(4)

Where the badl-i-sulh is not determined or is a property or a right the value of which cannot be determined in terms of money under Shari’ah, the right of qisas shall be deemed to have been compounded and the offender shall be liable to diyat.

 

(5)

Badl-i-sulh may be paid or given on demand or on a deferred date as may be agreed upon between the offender and the wali.

 

Explanation: In this section, Badl-i-sulh means the mutually agreed compensation according to Shari’ah to be paid or given by the offender to a wali in cash or in kind or in the form of movable or immovable property.

 

 120[

310A.

Punishment for giving a female in marriage or otherwise in badal-i-sulh, wanni or swara:
Whoever gives a female in marriage or otherwise compels her to enter into marriage, as badal-i-sulh, wanni or swara or any other custom or practice under any name, in consideration of settling a civil dispute or a criminal liability, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years but shall not be less than three years and shall also be liable to fine of five hundred thousand rupees..

 

] 120

311.

Ta’zir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd:
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 309 or Section 310, where all the wali do not waive or compound the right of qisas, or  
122[if] 122 the principle of fasad-fil-arz the Court may,  123[] 123 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, punish an offender against whom the right of qisas has been waived or compounded with  124[death or imprisonment for life or] 124 imprisonment of either description for a term of which may extend to fourteen years as ta’zir 125[:] 125

 126[

Provided that if the offence has been committed in the name or on the pretext of honour, the imprisonment shall not be less than ten years.

] 126

Explanation: For the purpose of this section, the expression fasad-fil-arz shall include the past conduct of the offender, or whether he has any previous convictions, or the brutal or shocking manner in which the offence has been committed which is outrageous to the public conscience, or if the offender is considered a potential danger to the community  127[, or if the offence has been committed in the name or on the pretext of honour] 127.

 

312.

Qatl-i-amd after waiver or compounding of qisas:
Where a wali commits qatl-iamd of a convict against whom the right of qisas has been waived under Section 309 or compounded under Section 310, such wali shall be punished with-

(a)

qisas, if he had himself, waived or compounded the right of qisas against the convict or had knowledge of such waiver of-composition by another wali, or

(b)

diyat, if he had no knowledge of such waiver or composition.

 

313.

Right of qisas in qatl-i-amd:

(1)

Where there is only one wali, he alone has the right of qisas in qatl-i-amd but, if there are more than one, the right of qisas vests in each of them.

 

(2)

If the victim-

(a)

has no wali, the Government shall have the right of qisas; or

(b)

has no wali other than a minor or insane or one of the wali is a minor or insane, the father or if he is not alive the paternal grandfather of such wali shall have the right of qisas on his behalf:

Provided that, if the minor or insane wali has no father or paternal grandfather, how high-so-ever, alive and no guardian has been appointed by the Court, the Government shall have the right of qisas on his behalf.

 

 

314.

Execution of qisas in qatl-i-amd:

(1)

Qisas in Qatll-i-amd shall be executed by a functionary of the Government by causing death of the convict as the Court may direct.

 

(2)

Qisas shall not be executed until all the wali are present at the time of execution, either personally or through their representatives authorised by them in writing in this behalf: Provided that where a wali or his representative fails to present himself on the date, time and place of execution of qisas after having been informed of the date, time and place as certified by the Court, an officer authorised by the Court shall give permission for the execution of qisas and the Government shall cause execution of qisas in the absence of such wali.

 

(3)

If the convict is a woman who is pregnant, the Court may, in consultation with an authorised medical officer, postpone the execution of qisas up to a period of two years after the birth of the child and during this period she may be released on bail on furnishing of security to the satisfaction of the Court, or, if she is not so released she shall, be dealt with as if sentenced to simple imprisonment.

 

 

315.

Qatl shibh-i-amd:
Whoever, with intent to cause harm to the body or mind of any person, causes the death of that or of any other person by means of a weapon or an act which in the ordinary course of nature is not likely to cause death is said to commit qatl shibh-i-amd.

Illustration

A in order to cause hurt strikes Z with a stick or stone which in the ordinary course of nature is not likely to cause death. Z dies as a result of such hurt. A shall be guilty of Qatl shibh-i-amd.

 

316.

Punishment for Qatl shibh-i-amd:
Whoever commits qatl shibh-i-amd shall be liable to diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to  
128[twenty-five years] 128 years as ta’zir.

 

317.

Person committing qatl debarred from succession:
Where a person committing qatl-i-amd or Qatl shibh-i-amd is an heir or a beneficiary under a will, he shall be debarred from succeeding to the estate of the victim as an heir or a beneficiary.

 

318.

Qatl-i-khata:
Whoever, without any intention to cause death of, or cause harm to, a person causes death of such person, either by mistake of act or by mistake of fact, is said to commit qatl-i-khata.

Illustrations

(a)

A aims at a deer but misses the target and kills Z who is standing by, A is guilty of qatl-i-khata.

 

(b)

A shoots at an object to be a boar but it turns out to be a human being. A is guilty of qatl-i-khata.

 

 

319.

Punishment for qatl-i-khata:
Whoever commits qatl-i-khata shall be liable to diyat:

Provided that, where qatl-i-khata is committed by a rash or negligent act, other than rash or negligent driving, the offender may, in addition to diyat, also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years as ta’zir.

 

320.

Punishment for qatl-i-khata by rash or negligent driving:
Whoever commits qatl-ikhata by rash or negligent driving shall, having regard to the facts and circumstances the case, in addition to diyat, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.

 

321.

Qatl-bis-sabab:
Whoever, without any intention, cause death of, or cause harm to, any person, does any unlawful act which becomes a cause for the death of another person, is said to commit qatl-bis-sabab.

Illustration

A unlawfully digs a pit in the thoroughfare, but without any intention to cause death of, or harm to, any person, B while passing from there falls in it and is killed. A has committed qatl-bis-sabab.

 

322.

Punishment for qatl-bis-sabab:
Whoever commit qatl bis-sabab shall be liable to diyat.

 

323.

Value of diyat:

(1)

The Court shall, subject to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah and keeping in view the financial position of the convict and the heirs of the victim, fix the value of diyat which shall not be less than the value of thirty thousand six hundred and thirty grams of silver.

 

(2)

For the purpose of sub-section (1), the Federal Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, declare the value of Silver, on the first day of July each year or on such date as it may deem fit, which shall be the value payable during a financial year.

 

 

324.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd:
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that, if he by that act caused qatl, he would be guilty of qatl-i-amd, shall be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to ten years  
129[but shall not be less than five years if the offence has been committed in the name or on the pretext of honour] 129, and shall also be liable to fine, and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall, in addition to the imprisonment and fine as aforesaid, be liable to the punishment provided for the hurt caused:

Provided that where the punishment for the hurt is qisas which is not executable, the offender shall be liable to arsh and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.

 

325.

Attempt to commit suicide:
Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

 

326.

Thug:
Whoever shall have been habitually associated with any other or others for the purpose of committing robbery or child-stealing by means of or accompanied with Qatl, is a thug.

 

327.

Punishment:
Whoever is a thug, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

 

328.

Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years by parent or person having care of it:
Whoever being the father or mother of a child under the age of twelve years, or having the care of such child, shall expose or leave such child in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning such child, shall be punished with imprisonment’ of either description for- a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation: This section is not intended to prevent the trial of the offender for qatl-i-amd or qatl-i-shibh-i-amd or qatl-bis-sabab, as the case may be, if the child dies in consequence of the exposure.

 

329.

Concealment of birth by secret disposal of dead body:
Whoever, by secretly burying or otherwise disposing of the dead body of a child whether such child dies before or after or during its birth, intentionally conceals or endeavours to conceal the birth shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

330.

Disbursement of diyat:
The diyat shall be disbursed among the heirs of the victim according to their respective shares in inheritance: Provided that, where an heir foregoes his share, the diyat shall not be recovered to the extent of his share.

 

331.

Payment of Diyat:

(1)

The diyat may be made payable in lumpsum or in instalments spread over a period of three years from the date of the final judgment.

 

(2)

Where a convict fails to pay diyat or any part thereof within the period specified in subsection (1), the convict may be kept in jail and dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to simple imprisonment until the diyat is paid full or may be released on bail If he furnishes security equivalent to the amount of diyat to the satisfaction of the Court.

 

(3)

Where a convict dies before the payment of diyat or any part thereof, it shall be recovered from his estate.

 

 

332

Hurt:

(1)

Whoever causes pain, harm, disease, infianity or injury to any person or impairs, disables  130[, disfigures, defaces] 130 or dismembers any organ of the body or part thereof of any person without causing his death, is said to cause hurt.

 131[Explanation:- disfigure means disfigurement of face or disfigurement or dismemberment of any organ or any part of of the organ of the human body which impairs or injures or corrodes or deforms the symmetry or appearsance of a person.] 131

 

(2)

The following are the kinds of hurt:

(a)

Itlaf-i-udw

(b)

Itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw

(c)

shajjah

(d)

jurh and

(e)

all kinds of other hurts.

 

 

333.

Itlaf-i-udw:
Whoever dismembers, amputates, severs any limb or organ of the body of another person is said to cause Itlaf-i-udw.

 

334.

Punishment for Itlaf-udw:
Whoever by doing any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person causes Itlaf-i-udw of any person, shall, in consultation with the authorised medical officer, be punished with qisas, and if the qisas is not executable keeping in view the principles of equality in accordance with the Injunctions of Islam, the offender shall be liable to arsh and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as ta’zir.

 

335.

Itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw:
Whoever destroys or permanently impairs the functioning, power or capacity of an organ of the body of another person, or causes permanent disfigurement is said to cause itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw.

 

336.

Punishment for itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw:
Whoever, by doing any act with the intention of causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person, causes itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw of any person, shall, in consultation with the authorised medical officer, be punished with qisas and if the qisas is not executable, keeping in view the principles of equality in accordance with the Injunctions of Islam, the offender shall be liable to arsh and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as taz’ir.

 

 132[

336A.

Hurt caused by corrosive substance:
Whoever with the intention or knowingly causes or attempts to cause hurt by means of a corrosive substance which is deleterious to human body when it is swallowed, inhaled, comes into contact or received into human body or otherwise shall be said to cause hurt by corrosive substance.

Explanation:- In this sub-section, unless the context otherwise requires, “corrosive substance” means a substance which may destroy, cause hurt, deface or dismember any organ of the human body and includes every kind of acid, poison, explosive or explosive substance, heating substance, noxious thing, arsenic or any other chemical which has a corroding effect and whcih is deleterious to human body.

 

336B.

Punishment for hurt by corrosive substance:
Whoever causes hurt by corrosive substance shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than fourteen years and a minimum fine of one million rupees.

 

] 132

337.

Shajjah:

(1)

Whoever causes, on the head or face of any person, any hurt which does not amount to itlaf-i-udw or itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, is said to cause shajjah.

 

(2)

The following are the kinds of shajjah namely:-

(a)

Shajjah-i-Khafifah

(b)

Shajjah-i-mudihah

(c)

Shajjah-i-hashimah

(d)

Shajjah-i-munaqqilah

(e)

Shaijah-i-ammah and

(f)

Shajjah-i-damighah

 

(3)

Whoever causes shajjah:-

(i)

without exposing bone of the victim, is said to cause shajjah-i-khafifah;

(ii)

by exposing any bone of the victim without causing fracture, is said to cause shajjah-imudihah;

(iii)

by fracturing the bone of the victim, without dislocating it, is said to cause shajjah-ihashimah;

(iv)

by causing fracture of the bone of the victim and thereby the bone is dislocated, is said to cause shajfah-i-munaqqilah;

(v)

by causing fracture of the skull of the victim so that the wound touches the membrane of the brain, is said to cause shajjah-i-ammah;

(vi)

by causing fracture of the skull of the victim and the wound ruptures the membrane of the brain is said to cause shajjah-i-damighah.

 

 

337-A.

Punishment of shajjah:
Whoever, by doing any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, causes-

(i)

shajjah-i-khafifah to any person, shall be liable to daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years as ta’zir,

(ii)

shajjah-i-mudihah to any person, shall, in consultation with the authorised medical officer, be punished with qisas, and if the, qisas is not executable keeping in view the principles of equality, in accordance with the Injunctions of Islam, the convict shall be liable to arsh which shall be five percent of the diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years as ta’zir,

(iii)

shajjah-i-hashimah to any person, shall be liable to arsh which shall be ten per cent of the diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as ta’zir,

(iv)

shajiah-i-munaqqilah to any person, shall be liable to arsh which shall be fifteen per cent of the diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as ta ‘zir,

(v)

shajjah-i-ammah to any person, shall be liable to arsh which shall be one-third of the diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as ta’zir, and

(vi)

shajjah-i-damighah to any person shall be liable to arsh which shall be one-half of diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years as ta’zir.

 

337-B.

Jurh:

(1)

Whoever causes on any part of the body of a person, other than the head or face, a hurt which leaves a mark of the wound, whether temporary or permanent, is said to cause jurh.

 

(2)

Jurh is of two kinds, namely:-

(a)

Jaifah ; and

(b)

Ghayr-jaifah.

 

 

337-C.

Jaifah:
Whoever causes jurh in which the injury extends to the body cavity of the trunk, is said to cause jaifah.

 

337-D.

Punishment for jaifah:
Whoever by doing any act with the intention of causing hurt to a person or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to such person, causes jaifah to such person, shall be liable to arsh which shall be one-third of the diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as ta’zir.

 

337-E.

Ghayr-jaifah:

(1)

Whoever causes jurh which does not amount to jaifah, is said to cause ghayr-jaifah.

 

(2)

The following are the kinds of ghayr-faifah, namely:-

(a)

damihah

(b)

badi’ah

(c)

mutalahimah

(d)

mudihah

(e)

hashimah; and

(f)

munaqqilah

 

(3)

Whoever causes ghayr-jaifah—

(i)

in which the skin is ruptured and bleeding occurs, is said to cause damiyah;

(ii)

by cutting or incising the flesh without exposing the bone, is said to cause badi’ah;

(iii)

by lacerating the flesh, is said to cause mutalahimah;

(iv)

by exposing the bone, is said to cause mudihah;

(v)

by causing fracture of a bone without dislocating it, is said to cause hashimah; and

(vi)

by fracturing and dislocating the bone, is said to cause munaqqilah.

 

 

337-F.

Punishment of ghayr-jaifah:
Whoever by doing any act with the intention of causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person, causes:-

(i)

damihah to any person, shall be liable to daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year as ta’zir;

(ii)

badi’ah to any person, shall be liable to daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years as ta’zir;

(iii)

mutafahimah to any person, shall be liable to daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years as ta’zir;

(iv)

mudihah to any person, shall be liable to daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years as ta’zir;

(v)

hashimah to any person, shall be liable to daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years as ta’zir, and

(vi)

munaqqilah to any person, shall be liable to daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years as ta’zir.

 

337-G.

Punishment for hurt by rash or negligent driving:
Whoever causes hurt by rash or negligent driving shall be liable to arsh or daman specified for the kind of hurt caused and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years as ta’zir.

 

337-H.

Punishment for hurt by rash or negligent act:

(1)

Whoever causes hurt by rash or negligent act, other than rash or negligent driving, shall be liable to arsh or daman specified for the kind of hurt caused and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years as ta’zir.

 

(2)

Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either-description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

 

 

337-I.

Punishment for causing hurt by mistake (khata):
Whoever causes hurt by mistake (khata) shall be liable to arsh or daman specified for the kind of hurt caused.

 

337-J.

Causing hurt by mean of a poison:
Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by, any person, any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or such other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt may, in addition to the punishment of arsh or daman provided for the kind of hurt caused, be punished, having regard to the nature of the hurt caused, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.

 

337-K.

Causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property:
Whoever causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of any offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer, or any person interested in the sufferer, to restore, or to cause the restoration of, any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property, or valuable security shall, in addition to the punishment of qisas, arsh or daman, as the case may be, provided for the kind of hurt caused, be punished, having regard to the nature of the hurt caused, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as ta’zir.

 

337-L.

Punishment for other hurt:

(1)

Whoever causes hurt, not mentioned hereinbefore, which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to remain in severe bodily pain for twenty days or more or renders him unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for twenty days or more, shall be liable to daman and also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.

 

(2)

Whoever causes hurt not covered by sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with daman, or with both.

 

 

337-M.

Hurt not liable to qisas:
Hurt shall not be liable to qisas in the following cases, namely:-

(a)

when the offender is a minor or insane:

Provided that he shall be liable to arsh and also to ta’zir to be determined by the Court having regard to the age of offender, circumstances of the case and the nature of hurt caused;

(b)

when an offender at the instance of the victim causes hurt to him:

Provided that the offender may be liable to ta’zir provided for the kind of hurt caused by him;

(c)

when the offender has caused itlaf-i-udw of a physically imperfect organ of the victim and the convict does not suffer from similar physical imperfection of such organ:

Provided that the offender shall be liable to arsh and may also be liable to ta’zir provided for the kind of hurt caused by him; and

(d)

when the organ of the offender liable to qisas is missing:

Provided that the offender shall be liable to arsh and may also be liable to ta’zir provided for the kind of hurt caused by him.

 

Illustrations

(i)

A amputates the right ear of Z, the half of which was already missing. If A’s right ear is perfect, he shall be liable to arsh and not qisas.

 

(ii)

If in (he above illustration, Z’s ear is physically perfect but without power of hearing, A shall be liable to qlsas because the defect in Z’s ear is not physical.

 

(iii)

If in illustration (i) Z’s ear is pierced, A shall be liable to qisas because such minor defect is not physical imperfection.

 

 

337-N.

Cases in which qisas for hurt shall not be enforced:

(1)

The qisas for a hurt shall not be enforced in the following cases, namely:-

(a)

when the offender dies before execution of qisas;

(b)

when the organ of the offender liable to qisas is lost before the execution of qisas:

Provided that offender shall be liable to arsh, and may also be liable to ta’zir provided for the kind of hurt caused by him;

(c)

when the victim waives the qisas or compounds the offence with badl-i-sufh; or

(d)

when the right of qisas devolves on the person who cannot claim qisas against the offender under this Chapter:

Provided that the offender shall be liable to arsh, if there is any wali other than the offender, and if there is no wali other than the offender he shall be liable to ta’zir provided for the kind of hurt caused by him.

 

(2)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, in all cases of hurt, the Court may, having regard to the kind of hurt caused by him, in addition to payment of arsh, award ta’zir to an offender who is a previous convict, habitual or hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal  133[or the offence has been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of honour] 133. 134[:] 134

 135[

Provided that the ta’zir shall not be less than one-third of the maximum imprisonment provided for the hurt caused if the offender is a previous convict, habitual, hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or if the offence has been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of honour.

] 135

 

 

337-O.

Wali in case of hurt:
In the case of hurt: The wali shall be-

(a)

the victim:

Provided that, if the victim is a minor or insane, his right of qisas shall be exercised by his father or paternal grandfather, how high-so-ever;

(b)

the heirs of the victim, if the later dies before the execution of qisas; and

(c)

the Government, in the absence of the victim or the heirs of the victim.

 

337-P.

Execution of qisas for hurt:

(1)

Qisas shall be executed in public by an authorised medical officer who shall before such execution examine the offender and take due care so as to ensure that the execution of qisas does not cause the death of the offender or exceed the hurt caused by him to the victim.

 

(2)

The wali shall be present at the time of execution and if the wali or his representative is not present, after having been informed of the date, time and place by the Court an officer authorised by the Court in this behalf shall give permission for the execution of qisas.

 

(3)

If the convict is a woman who is pregnant, the Court may, in consultation with an authorised medical officer, postpone the execution of qisas upto a period of two years after the birth of the child and during this period she may be released on bail on furnishing of security to the satisfaction of the Court or, if she is not so released, shall be dealt with as if sentenced to simple’ imprisonment.

 

 

337-Q.

Arsh for single organs:
The arsh for causing itlaf of an organ which is found singly in a human body shall be equivalent to the value of diyat.

Explanation: Nose and tongue are included in the organs which are found singly in a human body.

 

337-R.

Arsh for organs in pairs:
The arsh for causing itlaf of organs found in a human body in pairs shall be equivalent to the value of diyat and if itlaf is caused to one of such organs the amount of arsh shall be one-half of the diyat:

Provided that, where the victim has only one such organ or his other organ is missing or has already become incapacitated the arsh for causing itlaf of the existing or capable organ shall be equal to the value of diyat.

Explanation: Hands, feet, eyes, lips and breasts are included in the organs which are found in a human body in pairs.

 

337-S.

Arsh for the organs in quadruplicate:
The arsh for causing itlaf of organs found in a human body in a set of four shall be equal to-

(a)

one-fourth of the diyat, if the itlaf is one of such organs;

(b)

one-half of the diyat, if the itlaf is of two of such organs;

(c)

three-fourth of the diyat, if the itlaf is of three such organs; and

(d)

full diyat, if the itlaf is of all the four organs.

Explanation: Eyelids are organs which are found in a human body in a set of four.

 

337-T.

Arsh for fingers:

(1)

The arsh for causing itlaf of a finger of a hand or foot shall be one-tenth of the diyat.

 

(2)

The arsh for causing itlaf of a joint of a finger shall be one-thirteenth of the diyat:

Provided that where the itlaf is of a joint of a thumb, the arsh shall be one-twentieth of the diyat.

 

 

337-U.

Arsh for teeth:

(1)

The arsh for causing itlaf of a tooth, other than a milk tooth, shall be one-twentieth of the diyat.

Explanation: The impairment of the portion of a tooth outside the gum amounts to causing itlaf of a tooth.

 

(2)

The arsh for causing itlaf of twenty or more teeth shall be equal to the value of diyat.

 

(3)

Where the itlaf is of a milk tooth, the accused shall be liable to daman and may, also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year:

Provided that, where itlaf of a milk tooth impedes the growth of. a new tooth, the accused shall be liable to arsh specified in sub-section (1).

 

 

337-V.

Arsh for hair:

(1)

Whoever uproots:-

(a)

all the hair of the head, beard, moustaches eyebrow, eyelashes or any other part of the body shall be liable to arsh equal to diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years as ta’zir;

(b)

one eyebrow shall be liable to arsh equal to one- half of the diyat; and

(c)

one eyelash, shall be liable to arsh equal to one fourth of the diyat.

 

(2)

Where the hair of any part of the body of the victim are forcibly removed by any process not covered under sub section (1), the accused shall be liable to daman and imprisonment of either description which may extend to one year.

 

 

337-W.

Merger of arsh:

(1)

Where an accused more than one hurt, he shall be liable to arsh specified for each hurt separately:

Provided that, where:-

(a)

hurt is caused to an organ, the accused shall be liable to arsh for causing hurt to such organ and not for arsh for causing hurt to any part of such organ; and

(b)

the wounds join together and form a single wound, the accused shall be liable to arsh for one wound.

 

Illustrations

(i)

A amputates Z’s fingers of the right hand and then at the same time amputates that hand from the joint of his writs. There is separate arsh for hand and for fingers. A shall, however, be liable to arsh specified for hand only.

 

(ii)

A twice stabs Z on his thigh. Both the wounds are so close to each other that they form into one wound. A shall be liable to arsh for one wound only.

 

 

(2)

Where, after causing hurt to a person, the offender causes death of such person by committing qatl liable to diyat, arsh shall merge into such diyat.

Provided that the death is caused before the healing of the wound caused by such hurt.

 

 

337-X.

Payment of arsh:

(1)

The arsh may be made payable in a lump sum or in instalments spread over a period of three years from the date of the final judgment.

 

(2)

Where a convict fails to pay arsh or any part thereof within the period specified in subsection (1), the convict may be kept in jail and dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to simple imprisonment until arsh is paid in full may be released on bail if he furnishes security equal to amount of arsh to the satisfaction of the Court.

 

(3)

Where a convict dies before the payment of arsh any part thereof, it shall be recovered from his estate.

 

 

337-Y.

Value of daman:

(1)

The value of daman may be determined by the Court keeping in view:-

(a)

the expenses incurred on the treatment of victim;

(b)

loss or disability caused in the functioning or power of any organ; and

(c)

the compensation for the anguish suffered by the victim.

 

(2)

In case of non-payment of daman, it shall be recovered from the convict and until daman is paid in full to the extent of his liability, the convict may be kept in jail and dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to simple imprisonment or may be released on bail if he furnishes security equal to the amount of daman to the satisfaction of the Court.

 

 

337-Z.

Disbursement of arsh or daman:
The arsh or daman shall be payable to the victim or, if the victim dies, to his heirs according to their respective shares in inheritance.

 

338.

Isqat-i-Hamal:
Whoever causes woman with child whose organs have not been formed, to miscarry, if such miscarriage is not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, or providing necessary treatment to her, is said to cause isqat-i-hamal.

Explanation: A woman who causes herself to miscarry is within the meaning of this section.

 

338-A.

Punishment for Isqat-i-haml:
Whoever cause isqat-i-haml shall be liable to punishment as ta’zir-

(a)

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, if isqat-i-haml is caused with the consent of the woman; or

(b)

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, if isqat-i-haml is caused without the consent of the woman:

Provided that, if as a result of isqat-i-haml, any hurt is caused to woman or she dies, the convict shall also be liable to the punishment provided for such hurt or death as the case may be.

 

338-B.

Isqat-i-janin:
Whoever causes a woman with child some of whose limbs or organs have been formed to miscarry, if such miscarriage is not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, is said to cause Isqat-i-janin.

Explanation: A woman who causes herself to miscarry is within the meaning of this section.

 

338-C.

Punishment for Isqat-i-janin:
Whoever causes isqat-i-ianin shall be liable to:-

(a)

one-twentieth of the diyat if the child is born dead;

(b)

full diyat if the child is born alive but dies as a result of any act of the offender; and

(c)

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years as ta’zir:

Provided that, if there are more than one child in the womb of the woman, the offender shall be liable to separate diyat or ta’zir, as the case may be/for every such child:

Provided further that if, as a result of isqat-i-fanin, any hurt is caused to the woman or she dies, the offender shall also be liable to the punishment provided for such hurt or death, as the case may be.

 

338-D.

Confirmation of sentence of death by way of qisas or tazir, etc.:
A sentence of death awarded by way of qisas or ta’zir, or a sentence of qisas awarded for causing hurt, shall not be executed, unless it is confirmed by the High Court.

 

338-E.

Waiver or compounding of offences:

(1)

Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and Section 345 of the Code of. Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), all offences under this Chapter may be waived or compounded and the provisions of Sections 309 and 310 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the waiver or compounding of such offences:

Provided that, where an offence has been waived or compounded, the Court may, in its discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, acquit or award ta’zir to the offender according to the nature of the offence. 136[:] 136

 137[

Provided further that where an offence under this Chapter has been committed in the name or on the pretext of honour, such offence may be waived or compounded subject to such conditions as the Court may deem fit to impose with the consent of the parties having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

] 137

 

(2)

All questions relating to waiver or compounding of an offence or awarding of punishment under Section 310, whether before or after the passing of any sentence, shall be determined by trial Court:

Provided that where the sentence of qisas or any other sentence is waived or compounded during the pendency of an appeal, such questions may be determined by the trial Court.

 

 

338-F.

Interpretation:
In the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Chapter, and in respect of matter ancillary or akin thereto, the Court shall be guided by the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah.

 

338-G.

Rules:
The Government may, in consultation with the Council of Islamic ideology, by notification in the official Gazette, make such rules as it may consider necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Chapter.

 

338-H.

Saving:
Nothing in this Chapter, except Sections 309. 310 and 338-E. shall apply to cases pending before any Court immediately before the commencement of the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1990 (VII of 1990), or to the offences committed before such commencement.

 

] 111


CHAPTER XVI-A

OF WRONGFUL RESTRAINT & WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

339.

Wrongful restraint:
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

Exception: The obstruction of a private way over land or water, which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.

 

Illustration

A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path, Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.

 

340.

Wrongful confinement:
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as 10 prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.

Illustrations

(a)

A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z.

 

(b)

A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.

 

 

341.

Punishment for wrongful restraint:
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one month, or with fine, which may extend to  138[one thousand five hundred rupees] 138 or with both.

 

342.

Punishment for wrongful confinement:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for, a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to  139[three thousand rupees] 139 or with both.

 

343.

Wrongful confinement for three or more days:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person, for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 

344.

Wrongful confinement for ten or more days:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

345.

Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation writ has been issued:
Whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a writ for the liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be liable under any other section of this Chapter.

 

346.

Wrongful confinement in secret:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner as to indicate an intention that the confinement of such person may not be known to any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant, or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered by any such person of public servant as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.

 

347.

Wrongful confinement to extort property or constrain to illegal act:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any property or valuable security or of constraining the person confined or any person interested in such person to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

348.

Wrongful confinement to extort confession or compel restoration of property:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

 

 

Of Criminal Force and Assault

349.

Force:
A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other’s body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling: provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described:

First:

By his own bodily power.

Secondly:

By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.

Thirdly:

By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.

 

350.

Criminal force:
Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he wilt cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.

Illustrations

(a)

Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream. Here A intentionally causes motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner that the motion is produced without any other action on any person’s part. A has, therefore, intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence or intending or knowing it to be likely that this use of force will cause injury, for or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force to Z.

 

(b)

Z is riding in a chariot, A lashes Z’s horses, and thereby cause them to quicken their pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to change their motion. A has, therefore, used force to Z. and if ,A has done this without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z. A has used criminal force to Z.

 

(c)

Z is riding in a palanquin. A, intending to rob Z. seizes the pole and stops the palanquin. Here A has caused cessation of motion to Z, and he has done this by his own bodily power. A has, therefore, used force to Z and as A has acted thus intentionally without Z’s consent in order to the commission of an offence A has used criminal force to Z.

 

(d)

A intentionally pushes against Z in the street. Here A has by his own bodily power moved his own person so as to bring it into contact with Z. He has therefo