Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 302(c) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Defective investigation--- Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased and also causing injury to another person---As per FIR, occurrence in the case had taken place on 25.11.2018 in Tehsil Headquarter (THQ) Hospital---Though Investigating Officer had neither prepared site plan of the crime spot nor had taken into possession any blood or bloodstained garments of the deceased through recovery memo. nor placed on file the Medico-Legal Report of injured and postmortem report of the deceased---Such flaws on the part of the Investigating Agency were obvious---However, as the trial in the case had been conducted in accordance with law and proper opportunity of producing evidence and hearing had been provided to both the parties, therefore, flaws in the investigation would not have any adverse bearing on the prosecution's case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the accused was converted from S.302(b), P.P.C, to S.302(c), P.P.C, and his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years---Conviction of the accused under S.324, P.P.C, was maintained, however, period of his sentence was reduced from 10 years to 05 years rigorous imprisonment---With the said modification in conviction and sentences of the accused, appeal stood dismissed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 302(c) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular account, proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased and also causing injury to another person---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by three witnesses, injured/brother-in-law of accused, wife of the accused and a nurse---Besides their testimony, the accused was arrested redhanded at the spot along with crime dagger by the hospital administration and was handed over to Moharrir---In that regard the testimony of Hawaldar Levy Force posted in THQ Hospital was worthy of perusal as he had deposed that on 25.11.2018 he was on duty at DHQ Hospital where the occurrence took place---Accused was arrested along with dagger by the hospital administration and he informed Moharrir about the occurrence who along with other Levy Officials reached the hospital and arrested the accused along with crime dagger---Testimony of Moharrir fully corroborated the testimony of Hawaldar--- Injured deposed that his sister was married to the accused but due to harsh and cruel behaviour, she while abandoning her husband's house was living in her parents' house and by then she was also pregnant---On the fateful day, injured and others took his sister to THQ hospital for checkup and telephonically informed the accused to come to the said hospital---On examination of sister of injured, when doctor told that child in her womb had expired, the accused got infuriated and gave dagger blows to him and deceased, as a result, they both got injuries, and deceased succumbed to injuries---Wife of the accused had fully corroborated the testimony of eye-witness---Incharge nurse, THQ Hospital, was an independent and impartial witness being not related to any party---Said witness deposed that on the fateful day wife of accused was brought to the said hospital and she was complaining of bleeding---In the meantime the accused arrived at the hospital and threatened the hospital staff not to treat his wife---In the meanwhile, there was a scuffle between the accused and another person and later on she learnt that few persons were injured in the scuffle---Testimony of nurse fully proved the occurrence to have taken place inside THQ Hospital---Testimony of said witness also proved presence of the accused at the crime spot---However, one thing that could be inferred from the statement of witness was that there was a scuffle between the parties---Eye-witnesses were the wife of the accused while injured was his brother-in-law and it did not appeal to a prudent mind that such close relatives would charge an innocent person---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the accused was converted from S.302(b) P.P.C to S.302(c), P.P.C, and his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years---Conviction of the accused under S.324 P.P.C was maintained, however, period of his sentence was reduced from 10 years to 05 years rigorous imprisonment---With the said modification in the conviction and sentences of the accused, appeal stood dismissed. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 302(c) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Spur of the moment scuffle---Non-repitition of dagger blow---Injury on non-vital part of body---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased and also causing injury to another person---Record showed that no Medico-Legal Report of injured was available on file and there was also no autopsy report of the deceased, however, an OPD chit furnished by THQ Hospital was available on file which showed that deceased had received a single stab wound of 3cm on upper thigh which was a non-vital part---Mere fact that postmortem report of the deceased had not been conducted would not damage the prosecution's case---Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place at the spur of moment without premeditation and the deceased had sustained only single stab wound that too on non-vital part of his body---Accused had not repeated the act of giving further dagger blows to the deceased despite the fact that he was at his mercy---In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case coupled with single dagger blow on the person of the deceased that too on his non-vital part i.e. thigh, case of the accused fell within the exception (4) of the erstwhile S.300, P.P.C, which by that time, was punishable under S.304, P.P.C---Neither erstwhile S.300 nor exceptions thereto were available at present on the statute book, however, all the matters which were initially dealt with by erstwhile S.304, P.P.C, were now to be considered under S.302(c) P.P.C---Thus, conviction of the accused was converted from S.302(b), P.P.C, to S.302(c), P.P.C and his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years---Conviction of the accused under S.324, P.P.C, was maintained, however, period of his sentence was reduced from 10 years to 05 years rigorous imprisonment--- With the said modification in the conviction and sentences of the accused, appeal stood dismissed. Abdur Rehman v. The State 1998 SCMR 1778; Rahim Ullah v. the State 1985 PCr.LJ 463; Zard Ullah Khan v. The State 1998 MLD 855; Aqil v. the State 2023 SCMR 831; Muhammad Salim v. Muhammad Aslam and others 1983 SCMR 53; The State v. Muhammad Hanif and 05 others 1992 SCMR 2047 and Muhammad Ajmal v. The State 2022 SCMR 88 rel. Shabbir Hussain Gigyani for Appellant. Aqil Hussain, A.A.G for the State. Muhammad Furquan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th June, 2024.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)-Qatl-i-amd-Reappraisal of evidence-Sentence, reduction in-Conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C. altered to one under S.302(c), P.P.C.-Evidence revealed that a fight had ensued during which the accused swung a stick with force that landed on the head of the deceased-Such fact had been mentioned by deceased himself in his report to the police-Accused did not premeditate the killing, nor could he have since the complainant party had arrived unannounced at his house-Accused struck only a single blow with a simple stick and not with any weapon-Accused, without premeditation and in the heat of a free fight had struck the deceased with a single blow of a stick-In such circumstances his case would come within clause (c) of S. 302, P.P.C.-Conviction of accused recorded under S.302(b), P.P.C. was altered to one under S.302(c), P.P.C. and, consequently, his sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. Piran Ditta v. State 1993 SCMR 1934; Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad PLD 1996 SC 274; Zahid Rehman v. State PLD 2015 SC 77 and Muhammad Saleem v. State 2007 SCMR 1896 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 337-A(i)-Qatl-i-amd, shujjah-i-khafifah-Reappraisal of evidence-Death occurring few days after the injury-Contentions of accused were that he had only caused a single injury on the head of the deceased; that the deceased was fine thereafter and went to the doctor himself; that all of a sudden three days after the injury, the deceased expired; that in such circumstances accused could only be liable for offence of shujjah-i-khafifah, and not qatl-i-amd-Validity-Accused gave a blow with a stick with considerable force, fractured deceased's skull, which eventually resulted in his death-Fact that death did not occur instantaneously or even the same day would not detract from the nature of the offence-Post-mortem report identified only one injury on the deceased, which was caused by the accused, therefore, merely because deceased did not die instantaneously or within hours of receiving the blow would not exonerate the accused from causing his resultant death-Had the deceased not expired the accused would have been liable for one of the shujjah offences, however, the blow resulted in his death, consequently, it attracted S. 302, P.P.C.-Appeal was dismissed accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) - -Ss. 300, Exceptions & 304 (erstwhile) & 302(c)-Cases covered by the Exceptions in the old S.300, P.P.C. and the old S. 304, P.P.C. were to be dealt with under clause (c) of the S. 302, P.P.C. Piran Ditta v. State 1993 SCMR 1934; Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad PLD 1996 SC 274 ref. Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sidhu, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab for the State.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860----Ss. 302(a), 302(b), 302(c), 304, 306, 307 & 308---Qatl-i-amd (intentional murder)---Distinction between Qisas and Ta’zir---Scope and applicability of Section 308, P.P.C.---Authoritative interpretation---Supreme Court clarified that Qisas and Ta’zir are two distinct and mutually exclusive legal regimes under Islamic criminal jurisprudence---Section 308, P.P.C., providing alternate punishment where Qisas is not liable or enforceable, is applicable only in cases where Qisas is otherwise attracted but barred due to specific exceptions under Ss. 306 or 307, P.P.C.---Where murder is proved without fulfilling the evidentiary requirements of S. 304, P.P.C., such case falls within the Ta’zir domain under S. 302(b), P.P.C., and Ss. 306–308, P.P.C., have no application---Confusion arose due to earlier judgments applying S. 308, P.P.C., to Ta’zir cases without assessing whether Qisas was applicable---Court categorically held that benefit under S. 308, P.P.C., is not available in cases where conviction is under S. 302(b), P.P.C. as Ta’zir.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 306---Qatl-i-amd not liable to Qisas---Categories defined---Provision does not create a distinct offence but provides exceptions to the enforcement of Qisas in cases where the offender is a minor, insane, parent, or where Wali is a direct descendant---Offenders falling under this provision may be exempt from Qisas but may still face punishment under S. 308, P.P.C., provided the case otherwise qualifies as Qisas.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 308---Punishment in Qatl-i-amd not liable to Qisas---Limited application---Provision operates only where Qisas is applicable but not enforceable due to exceptions in Ss. 306 or 307, P.P.C.---Does not apply to cases where punishment is awarded as Ta’zir under S. 302(b), P.P.C.(d) Case Law---Conflicting Precedents---Resolution by Larger BenchCourt reviewed case law spanning over two decades and resolved the long-standing judicial divergence regarding the applicability of Ss. 306–308, P.P.C.---Judgments in cases such as Khalil-uz-Zaman v. Supreme Appellate Court (PLD 1994 SC 885) and its reversal in Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman (1999 SCMR 2203) revisited---Court held that the latter judgment by a five-member bench holds greater authoritative value and correctly laid down the law---All subsequent decisions granting benefit of S. 308, P.P.C., in Ta’zir cases were held per incuriam to the extent they ignored or misapplied Faqir Ullah’s ratio.(e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 17---Tazkiyah-tul-shahood---Precondition for Qisas punishment---Qatl-i-amd punishable as Qisas can only be awarded if confession or competent eyewitness testimony (in accordance with Islamic standards) is provided---Failure to meet these requirements shifts the case to Ta’zir regime under S. 302(b), P.P.C.(f) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Art. 203G---Interpretation of Islamic injunctions---Scope of judicial review---Supreme Court clarified that interpretation of Islamic injunctions for the purposes of testing repugnancy lies with the Federal Shariat Court and not with the Supreme Court or High Courts.Disposition:Court conclusively held that provisions of Ss. 306, 307, and 308, P.P.C. apply exclusively to cases of Qisas and are inapplicable to Ta’zir convictions under S. 302(b), P.P.C.---Judicial clarity reaffirmed on the doctrinal separation of Qisas and Ta’zir frameworks in Islamic criminal law.Cited Cases:• Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman, 1999 SCMR 2203• Iftikhar-ul-Hassan v. Israr Bashir, PLD 2007 SC 111• Muhammad Akram v. The State, 2003 SCMR 855• Ghulam Murtaza v. The State, 2004 SCMR 4• Tauqeer Ahmad Khan v. Zaheer Ahmad, 2009 SCMR 420

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another PLD 1996 SC - 274 and Gul Hassan's case PLD 1989 SC 633 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(c), 300(old) & 304(old)-Cases falling under S.302(c), P.P.C.-Intent and import-Cases covered by the Exceptions to the old S.300, P.P.C. read with the old S.304, P.P.C. are intended to be dealt with under clause (c) of new S.302, P.P.C. Gul Hassan's case PLD 1989 SC 633 ref. Shabbir Lali, D.P.-G. Punjab for the State.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(a) & 302(b)-Punishment of Qatl-i-Amd-No doubt sentence of death as Qisas cannot be inflicted unless requirements of Tazkiyah-al-Shuhood are satisfied and proof of Qatl-i-Amd liable to Qisas as required by S.304, P.P.C. is available, but in the absence of requisite proof under S.304, P.P.C. Ta'zir punishment can be inflicted on an accused, because every Muslim is a competent witness as he is ordained to speak truth and his testimony cannot be discarded, so far as Ta'zir punishment is concerned, if the same is otherwise believable. Mumtaz Ahmad and another v. The State PLD 1990 FSC 38; Arshad Ali v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 2540; Ghulam Ali v. The State PLD 1986 SC 741; Riaz Ahmad v. The State 1998 SCMR 1729; Abdul Salam v. The State 2000 SCMR 338; Muhammad Rafiq v. Muhammad Manzoor and others 2007 SCMR 216 and Muhammad Saleem and others v. The State 2006 SCMR 849 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(a) & 302(b)-Appraisal of evidence-Although sentence of death as Qisas could not be awarded to accused unless requirements of Tazkiyah-al-Shuhood were satisfied and proof of Qatl-i-Amd liable to Qisas as required by S.304, P.P.C. was available, yet Tazir punishment could be inflicted on him, because every Muslim was a competent witness who was ordained to speak truth and his testimony could not be discarded if it was otherwise believable-Question of minority of accused at the time of commission of offence had been considered by High Court keeping in view the evidence on record and repelled-Documents referred to and relied upon in support of minority of accused were not produced before the Trial Court as well as the High Court, and at the belated stage accused by his conduct was estopped to take a different stand-All the three eye-witnesses having the stamp of injuries on their persons had corroborated each other in material particulars and their testimony was supported by the medical as well as other evidence-No previous enmity existed between the parties, which knew each other and there was no chance of mistaken identity-Concurrent findings of both the Courts below having been based on reliable and tangible evidence, were unquestionable-Conviction of accused was altered from S.302(a), P.P.C. to S.302(b), P.P.C. and his sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life in circumstances. M. Saddique Khan Baloch, D.P.-G., Punjab for the State.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(a)-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether lesser sentence in such-like case could be awarded, when case under Hudood Ordinance was got registered against deceased and her husband but they were acquitted upto the level of Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court, therefore, it was a sufficient proof of the petitioner/complainant and deceased being husband and wife, in such circumstances the ground of sudden provocation or family honour would not arise at all. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 304-Qatl-i-Amd-Punishment-Principles-Qatl-i-Amd is punishable with death as Qisas if proof in either of the forms specified in S.304 P.P.C. is available-In absence of such proof Qatl-i-Amd can be visited with punishment of death or imprisonment for life as Tazir under S.302(b), P.P.C. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 304 & 309-Right of Qisas, waiver of-Principles-Adult sane Wali, under S.309, P.P.C. can waive his right of Qisas even without compensation but only if proof in terms of S.304 P.P.C. (for Qisas) is available against accused. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(b), 309 & 338(E)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345-Qatl-i-Amd-Punishment as Tazir-Compounding of offence-Principles-Conviction/sentence under Tazir can be compounded only if all heirs forgive the offender and relevant provisions for compounding such offences are S.338 (E), P.P.C. read with S.345, Cr.P.C. and not S.309, P.P.C. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 (b) (c), 309 & 338(E)-Reappraisal of evidence-Qatl-i-Amd-Punishment as Tazir-Grave and sudden provocation, principle of-Applicability-Partial compromise-Effect-Complainant and his wife contracted marriage against the wishes of the family of his wife-Both accused armed with guns in a broad-daylight, chased the victims who tried to take refuge in a nearby hotel but accused broke open the door and made repeated fires, as a result complainant was injured and his wife was murdered-During trial, only the parents of deceased forgave the accused and compounded the offence, thus Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to 25 years of imprisonment-High Court found it to be a case of grave and sudden provocation, therefore, reduced the sentence to what they had already undergone-Validity-Case was that of partial compromise-Offence of Tazir under S.302 P.P.C. could be compounded only by the heirs of Victim-All heirs did not compound the offence but only parents of deceased had done so and not her husband-Accused having been tried and convicted as Tazir, they could be extended benefit of compromise only if all legal heirs had compounded the offence-High Court failed to appreciate that neither S.302(c) nor 5.309, P.P.C. which stipulated Afw by Wali were applicable as those would have been relevant only if evidence led trial and sentence awarded was for Qatl-i-Amd as Qisas-Offence of Qatl-i-Amd having been proved against accused as Tazir and all heirs of victim having not compounded the offence, the accused ought to have been sentenced under S.302(b), P.P.C. to life imprisonment and not under S.302(c), P.P.C.-Deceased and complainant claimed to be husband and wife pursuant to a registered Nikah Nama, veracity of which was affirmed by Federal Shariat Court in judgment delivered subsequent to the occurrence-Motive alleged, weapons used, the manner of attack and place of occurrence reflected pre-meditation and planning both-Provocation was neither sudden nor grave-Ground of grave and sudden provocation taken by High Court to reduce sentence was not available to warrant award of lesser punishment-Judgment thus, was not sustainable-Supreme Court set aside the sentence awarded by High Court and restored that of Trial Court-Appeal was allowed. Walayat v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 111; Riaz Ahmed v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 43; Manzoor Hussain and 4 others v. The State 1994 SCMR 1327; Muhammad Aslam v. Shaukat Ali 1997 SCMR 1307; Niaz Ahmed v. State PLD 2003 SC 635; Mohib Ali v. The State 1985 SCMR 2055; Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another PLD 1996 SC 274 and Abdul Zahid and another v. The State 2000 SCMR 406 ref. Ch. Munir Sadiq, Deputy P.G. Punjab for the State.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(a), (b), 304, 309(1)(2) & 310(l) - Qatl-i-Amd - Punishment of death as Qisas-Essentials-Proof, liability or Afw or compounding of Qisas (Sulah) in Qatl-i-Amd-Principles-Applicability of Ss.309(1)(2) & 310(1), P.P.C.-Scope-Death sentence as Qisas can only be awarded when the proof of Qatl-i-Amd liable to Qisas as prescribed under S.304, P.P.C. is available-Where either of the forms of proof as prescribed in Ss.302(a), (b), 304, 309(1)(2) & 310, P.P.C. was not available in the case because neither the accused confessed his guilt nor evidence as required under Art. 17, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was available, punishment of death as Qisas under S.302(a), P.P.C. could not be awarded-Provisions of Ss.309(1)(2) & 310(1), P.P.C. would apply to the cases where punishment had been recorded as Qisas and not as Ta'zir as such the Afw of Qisas and compounding of Qisas in case of Qatl-i-Amd would apply only to the case where conviction and sentence had been recorded under S.302(a), P.P.C. and not to the case where conviction and sentence had been recorded as Ta'zir under S.302(b), P.P.C.-Offender having been punished under Ta'zir, provision of Ss.309 & 310, P.P.C. would not be applicable-Where the accused had been awarded sentence for murder as Ta'zir and not as Qisas, one of the legal heirs could not waive his right of Qisas, compromise the offence or accept Badl-i-Sulh. Sh. Muhammad Aslam and another v. Shaukat Ali alias Shauka and others 1997 SCMR 1307 and Manzoor and others v. The State and others 1992 SCMR 2037 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 345(2) [as amended by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (II of 1997), S.14]-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.309(2) & 302(b)-Compounding of offences-Scope-Death sentence awarded for murder as Ta'zir can be compounded by all the legal heirs of the deceased with the permission of the Court concerned-Where in a case only one of the legal heirs of the deceased had compromised with the accused and the rest of the heirs had been opposing the compromise, punishment awarded under S.302(b), P.P.C. could neither be compounded in absence of other legal heirs nor provision of S.309(2), P.P.C. could be pressed into service in such case.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -.S.320-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to the State to examine whether High Court in acquitting the accused had rightly interpreted S. 320, P.P.C. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(c)-Scope of S. 302(c), P.P.C.-Cases which fell under S.304, P.P.C. earlier are now covered by S.302(c), P.P.C. similarly S,304-A, P.P.C. has been replaced by S.320, P.P.C. (c) Penal Code (XLV of.1860)- -S.320-Appraisal of, evidence-Rash and negligent driving-1n order to determine whether the driving was rash and negligent, attending circumstances had to be looked into-Speed could very easily be determined by the fact that the vehicle went out of control hitting an ox which died at the spot and thereafter collided with a tree with such velocity that a person sitting in the coach died immediately and a number of passengers were injured-High Court, thus, had erred in law by holding that prosecution had failed to prove rash and negligent driving-Reasoning that S. 320, P.P.C. could be attracted only if a person had died on the road on account of accident, was against the law-Such a 'qualification was not contained in any of the provisions of the Penal Code-Only ingredient was "Qatl-i-Khata"by rash and negligent act-Consideration of being on a road on foot or inside a vehicle was not there and could not be read into the law-Misreading as well as non-reading of evidence had also been made in the case-High Court had no basis to conclude that the ox was tied on the road which met with the accident and there was no rash and negligent driving-Complainant in his statement on oath had specifically stated that the accused was driving the coach in a rash and negligent manner and his ox had died which was tied on the road side, which was not challenged by the defence on such points-Without giving any finding with regard to the truthfulness or otherwise of the witness, the statement had to be accepted-Judgment of High Court acquitting the accused was consequently set aside and that of the Trial Court convicting him was restored-Appeal was accepted accordingly. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S.320-Punishment for"Qatl-i-Khata"by rash or negligent driving-Section 320, P.P.C. does not admit for its attraction a qualification that a person should die on the road on account of accident, which is against law and is not contained in any of the provisions of the Penal Code-Only ingredient is"Qatl-i-Khata" by rash and negligent act-Consideration of being on a road on foot or inside a vehicle is not there and should not be read into the law. (e) Evidence- - Appreciation of evidence-Principle-If no finding is given with regard to the truthfulness or otherwise of a witness,. his statement has to be accepted with regard to the truthfulness or otherwise of a witness.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(c)-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal was granted to accused by Supreme Court to reappraise the evidence and to consider whether the confessional statement of accused could be partly relied upon or not. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S.302(c)-Appraisal of evidence-Accused had voluntarily made the confession before a Magistrate competent to record the same, but he retracted same at the time of trial-Accused having been convicted under S.302(c): P.P.C. his confession recorded by a Magistrate did not fall within the restrictions of S. 304, P.P.C: and the same was admissible and could be relied upon if the same inspired confidence-Accused was apprehended at the spot with blood-stained hatchet inside the house by police officials who were not shown to be inimical or interested witnesses and they could be relied upon-Courts below had arrived at just conclusions after having elaborately attended to every aspect of the case which were not open to any interference-Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Abdul Zahir v. State 2000 SCMR 406; Abdus Salam v. State 2000 SCMR 338; Naseem Akhtar v. State 1999 SCMR 1744 and Muhammad Aslam v. Shaukat Ali 1997 SCMR 1307 ref.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302-Constiiution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal was granted to accused to consider whether, if at all, he was not entitled to the complete right of private defence of person and property; that he was not entitled to the benefit of extending the right of private defence and lesser punishment under S. 304, P.P.C. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-