Right of private defence of the body extending to cause death

Citation Name : 2020 PCrLJ 124 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : ADAM KHAN
Side Opponent : ABDUL KHALIQ
S. 100---self -defence of property and person, right of---Scope---Law had given right to the occupant of any property to expel the intruder or trespasser---If the intruder or trespasser had made his entry for illicit purpose then the right of self -defence of property and person was further fortified even to the extent of causing death of intruder or trespasser if he did not retreat after having been told or alarmed to retreat---Right of self defence was recognized by law, but it was to be exercised if circumstances so warrant---Every citizen was entitled to resist attack and defend himself and his property when he or his property faced the danger and State machinery was not readily available---Citizen was entitled to protect himself and his property, in circumstances---Legally the right of self -defence would arise where danger to person or property was imminent and would remain available as long as such danger exists.

Citation Name : 2020 PCrLJ 124 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : ADAM KHAN
Side Opponent : ABDUL KHALIQ
Ss. 302, 324, 97 & 100---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Right of private defence of the body extending to cause death---Scope---Prosecution case was that a quarrel had taken place between deceased and injured, due to which, exchange of firing was made between both of them and one person died---Record showed that the prosecution in order to establish the charge had produced the evidence of twelve witnesses, but the statements of all the witnesses were based upon hearsay evidence and the prosecution had failed to produce any single direct or circumstantial evidence in support of charge---Admittedly, the law was set on motion on the basis of fard-e-bayan of the complainant/Police Officer, who appeared in the Trial Court, but the fact remained that he had not witnessed the crime directly---Statement of complainant, therefore, was not helpful to the case of prosecution---Record transpired that on the day of occurrence, the deceased entered the jewelry shop of accused/respondent, took out pistol and handed over an empty bag to accused/respondent for putting gold ornaments therein, accused/respondent made resistance and during exchange of firing both the deceased and the accused/respondent received bullet injuries on their persons---Licensed pistol was recovered from the accused/respondent, while an unlicensed pistol was recovered from the possession of the deceased---Recovery of unlicensed pistol from the possession of the deceased depicted of his malice intention for committing decoity---Circumstances suggested that accused/respondent had used the right of his self -defence as envisaged under provisions of Ss. 97 & 100, P.P.C.---Nothing incriminating had come on record that the accused/respondent in any manner had misused the right of self -defence ---Entry of deceased in armed condition in jewelry shop of the accused/respondent was certainly not for any good reason but for illicit purposes---Accused/respondent could not be convicted for such charges when all the facts and circumstances clearly suggested that the deceased entered into the shop for dacoity---Trial Court had rightly recorded the acquittal order in favour of accused/respondent---Order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was neither arbitrary, capricious, fanciful nor contrary to the evidence on record warranting interference by High Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2020 PLD 32 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ADIL SERWAR alias MUHAMMAD ADIL
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 423 & 540---Powers of appellate court in disposing of appeal---Remand for summoning of further witnesses---Scope--- Petitioner assailed order of appellate court whereby it had remanded the case to Trial Court for examination of further witnesses---Validity---Appellate court had remanded the case for examination of witnesses without any application from prosecution---Specific provision was available with the parties to move such application but that remedy was not availed therefore it was not within the domain of the appellate court to order of summoning/examination of particular witnesses which, otherwise, prosecution itself avoided nor the defence so intended---Parties could seek production of additional evidence but the jurisdiction, available with Trial Court, to suo motu call/summon witness, was not available with appellate court---Appellate court prima facie travelled beyond its jurisdiction, which the procedural law had not vested on it---High Court set aside the order of the appellate Court.