Before Muhammad Munir, C.J, and Cornelius, J.
GHULAM, SON OF NADIR – Convict – Appellants
versus
THE CROWN – Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 1949, decided on 5th January 1950, from the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore at Sheikhupura, dated the 18th December 1948.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 300, Secondly and Thirdly – Sudden quarrel – Injury on Head caused with heavy hatchet – Skull fractured into twelve pieces – intention – Offence, whether murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Accused, engaged in a quarrel with his wife, suddenly picked up a hatchet with which he struck her on the head and the woman died within a few minutes. Post-mortem examination showed skull fractured into twelve pieces.

Held, that in view of the damage caused to the head of the deceased, the accused intended o cause the injury that he actually caused, that that injury was known by the accused to be likely to cause the death of the woman and that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The offence committed was murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

If a man even in the course of a sudden quarrel, gives a terrific blow on the head of another with a weapon like a heavy hammer or a heavy hatchet and the result is that the head bones are smashed to pieces, it must on the principle that a man intends the natural consequences of his act be held that he intended to cause such bodily injury as he knew was likely to cause death or that the injury intended to be inflicted was offence committed is therefore murder both under clauses Secondly and Thirdly to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code unless some exception to that section reduces it from murder to culpable homicide. The mere fact that the blow was caused in nth course of a sudden quarrel does not negative this intention. [p. 93].

30. P. R. 1902 Cr. Dissented from;
5 P. R. 1893 Cr. Distinguished.

(b) Evidence – Eye-witnesses – Confused Statement in post. Mortem report as to time of death – Conflict – Whether eye-witness account could be rejected.

The evidence of eye-witness could not be rejected merely on the strength of some confused statements in the post mortem report about which the doctor was not questioned at all in Court. {p. 92].

G. H. Lodhi and Chiragh Din, for Appellant.
Ch. Muhammad Sharif, Assistant to the Advocate General, for Respondent.