Jamshed vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1480 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Jamshed VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 311, 109 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Compounding of offence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter-in-law/wife of son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant, due to their love marriage---Appellants were convicted and sentenced in the case by the Trial Court---Appellants assailed the said judgment of their conviction and sentence---During the pendency of appeal, appellant filed an application under S.345,Cr.P.C., seeking permission to compound the offence and acquittal on the basis of compromise arrived at between them and the legal heirs of female deceased and injured---Held: In the present case, the complainant alleged that his son had married sister of appellant against her family's wishes, which led to a grudge and the subsequent attack in which his daughter-in-law was killed and his son was injured---Appellants were indicted under Ss. 302, 324, 311, 109 & 34,P.P.C.---Charge under S.311,P.P.C., specifically alleged that the offence was committed on the pretext of honour---However, in the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the appellants under Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i) & 337-F(v),P.P.C., but did not give any finding on the charges under Ss. 311 & 34,P.P.C---Although, the motive was re-referred to, but it was not properly evaluated in the context of the charge under S.311, P.P.C---Said omission constituted a material irregularity, as S.367,Cr.P.C., required a reasoned judgment on every charge framed during the trial---Charge under S.109,P.P.C.,was not directed against the present appellants but was framed against acquitted accused persons---Accordingly, no finding was required on that charge---Although High Court, in the exercise of its appellate powers under S.423,Cr.P.C., might record findings of fact and law, it would not be appropriate to do so in the present case---Charge under S.311,P.P.C., raised distinct factual and legal issues, including whether the offence was committed in the name or on the pretext of honour, thereby attracting the principle of fasad-fil-arz under S.299(ee),P.P.C---Thus, this determination required an evaluation of motive, the manner of commission and other surrounding circumstances, all of which could best be addressed by the Trial Court in the first instance---Most importantly, a finding under S.311,P.P.C., carried a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment where honour was involved---Therefore, the accused must be given a fair opportunity to contest the charge at the trial level---Deciding such issue at the appellate stage without the benefit of the Trial Court's finding would not only prejudice the appellant but would also compromise procedural fairness---Similarly, the Trial Court must record a finding on the charge under S.34,P.P.C, which was framed but left unaddressed in the impugned judgment---Thus, the matter must be remanded for the limited purpose to re-write the judgment determining whether the offence fell within the mischief of fasad-fil-arz, as defined in S.299(ee), P.P.C, and attracted S.311,P.P.C, and whether the charge under S.34,P.P.C., was made out on the basis of the evidence on record---Appeal was partly allowed.

Jamshed vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1480 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ