The defence of self-defence is a legal principle that allows an individual to use reasonable force to protect themselves or others from imminent harm. This defence justifies actions taken to prevent or repel an attack, provided that the force used is proportional to the threat faced. In essence, self-defence is grounded in the belief that individuals have the right to protect their bodily integrity and life.
Key elements of self-defence include:
- Imminent Threat: The person claiming self-defence must be facing an immediate threat of harm. This means that the danger must be present and not merely speculative or in the future.
- Proportionality: The force used in self-defence must be proportional to the threat. Excessive force, especially lethal force, is not justified if the threat could have been neutralized with less severe measures.
- Reasonableness: The response to the threat must be reasonable under the circumstances. This involves considering what an average person would deem necessary in the same situation.
- Unprovoked Attack: Generally, the person claiming self-defence must not have provoked the attack. If they initiated the conflict, their claim to self-defence might be weakened.
In Pakistan, the principles of self-defence are enshrined in Sections 96 to 106 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). These sections provide the legal framework for when and how self-defence can be claimed. For instance, Section 100 of the PPC allows the use of lethal force in cases where there is a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
Misconceptions About Self-Defence in Pakistan
From the wealth of available case law, several common misconceptions about the defence of self-defence in Pakistan can be identified. These misconceptions often arise from misunderstandings of the legal principles and judicial interpretations surrounding self-defence. Addressing these misconceptions is crucial for a clearer understanding of how self-defence is evaluated in Pakistani courts.
- Self-Defence Automatically Justifies Any Action: A prevalent misconception is that any act claimed to be in self-defence is automatically justified. However, cases like Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (1987 PCRLJ 348) and Ali Muhammad v. The State (2000 PCrLJ 1500) demonstrate that the courts rigorously evaluate whether the response was proportional to the threat. The force used must be reasonable and necessary to avert the danger, and excessive force may not be justified.
- Lack of Immediate Threat is Sufficient for Self-Defence: Some believe that a perceived threat, even if not immediate, can justify self-defence. In Zahfran v. The State (1982 PCRLJ 58), the Peshawar High Court rejected the self-defence plea due to the absence of immediate danger. The accused must prove that they faced an imminent threat to their life or property at the time of the incident.
- Self-Defence Claims Do Not Require Corroborative Evidence: Another misconception is that self-defence claims do not need corroborative evidence. Judicial decisions like Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1991 PCRLJ 1086) and Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2003 PCrLJ 1067) emphasize the importance of consistent and credible evidence supporting the self-defence claim. Mere assertions by the accused are insufficient without supporting evidence.
- Mutual Combat Can Be Claimed as Self-Defence: There is a misconception that self-defence can be claimed in situations of mutual combat. The Lahore High Court in Pehliwan v. The State (1961 PLD 208) clarified that in cases of sudden fights where both parties are ready to engage, self-defence is not applicable. Self-defence is intended for situations where the accused is responding to an unprovoked and immediate threat.
- Self-Defence Justifies Any Level of Harm: Many believe that self-defence justifies any level of harm inflicted on the aggressor. The principle of proportionality, as highlighted in cases like Ali Muhammad v. The State (2000 PCrLJ 1500) and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (1987 PCRLJ 348), requires that the response must be proportionate to the threat. Excessive force that exceeds what is necessary to defend oneself may not be justified.
- Self-Defence Claims Can Be Evaluated at Any Stage: Some assume that self-defence claims can be thoroughly evaluated at the bail stage. In Imdad Ali v. Shahabuddin (1975 PCRLJ 1145), the Karachi High Court noted that while bail can be granted in clear cases of self-defence, detailed evaluation of such claims typically requires a full trial where all evidence is presented and scrutinized.
- Delayed FIRs and Unreliable Witnesses Do Not Impact Self-Defence Claims: It is mistakenly believed that delayed FIRs and unreliable witnesses do not affect the evaluation of self-defence. In Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1991 PCRLJ 1086), the Lahore High Court took into account the delayed FIR and unreliable witnesses, which influenced the court’s assessment of the self-defence claim.
- Self-Defence Applies Only to the Accused: Another misconception is that self-defence rights are exclusive to the accused. The Lahore High Court in Fayyaz Akbar v. The State (2000 YLR 2246) recognized that even a stranger can exercise the right of self-defence on behalf of the victim if there is a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous injury.
These misconceptions highlight the need for a nuanced understanding of self-defence in Pakistani law. The judiciary’s careful and balanced approach ensures that self-defence is rightfully applied, protecting individuals while preventing misuse of this defence. Addressing these misconceptions can help in better comprehending the legal principles and judicial interpretations surrounding self-defence in Pakistan.
A Review of the Case Law on Self-Defence Over Several Decades
In the context of judicial attitudes and interpretations regarding the defence of self-defence in Pakistan, the case law highlights the nuances and specific considerations taken by the courts when evaluating claims of self-defence. The analysis of these judicial attitudes can be elucidated through a detailed commentary on several pertinent cases.
(1) In the case of Noor-ur-Rehman v. State (2023 PCrLJ 826), the Peshawar High Court dealt with an appeal where the accused was charged under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing qatl-i-amd (murder). The accused, Noor-ur-Rehman, claimed he acted in self-defence when the deceased entered his house searching for pigeons. Despite the accused not explicitly taking the plea of self-defence in his statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court extended the benefit of this plea based on the circumstances and evidence presented. This case underscores the judicial recognition that self-defence can be inferred from the situational context, even if not formally pleaded by the accused. The court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence from fourteen years to ten years, recognizing the accused’s actions as self-defence but noting that he had exceeded the necessary force by directly firing at the deceased rather than making an aerial shot.
(2) In the case of Ghulam Dastgeer v. State (2023 YLR 793), the Lahore High Court dealt with the defence plea under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The accused claimed self-defence to save his own life from an imminent threat posed by the deceased. The court reiterated that the prosecution’s failure to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt necessitated the acceptance of the defence plea in its entirety. The court emphasized the legal principle that the defence version should be accepted or rejected as a whole, without selectively endorsing parts favourable to the prosecution while disregarding exculpatory evidence. The appeal against conviction was allowed, highlighting the stringent burden on the prosecution to disprove the self-defence claim.
(3) The case of Muhammad Hanif v. Syed Safdar Abbas Zaidi (2023 MLD 801) before Karachi High Court also sheds light on the judicial approach to self-defence. Here, the accused was acquitted based on his claim that he fired at the deceased in self-defence during an attempted robbery. The court noted the immediate actions of the accused post-incident, such as calling the police and an ambulance, which corroborated his claim of not acting with malicious intent. The prompt filing of the FIR and lack of enmity or motive further supported the defence claim, leading the court to dismiss the appeal against acquittal. This case illustrates the court’s reliance on corroborative actions and the logical consistency of the accused’s behaviour in validating self-defence claims.
(4) In Owais v. State (2022 PCrLJ 920), the Karachi High Court addressed multiple appeals involving accusations of qatl-i-amd and other offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The court provided a thorough examination of the prosecution’s evidence, emphasizing the necessity of proving the safe custody and transmission of incriminating material. The absence of such proof and other inconsistencies led the court to acquit the accused, underscoring the judiciary’s stringent requirements for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving self-defence claims.
(5) The Karachi High Court’s decision in Ayaz v. State (2021 MLD 2019) offers significant insights into this matter, particularly within the framework of anti-terrorism and criminal law. In Ayaz v. State, the accused and his co-accused were charged under Sections 324, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, along with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. They were accused of attempting to commit qatl-i-amd (murder), assaulting a public servant, and committing acts of terrorism. The prosecution’s case was that the accused and his accomplices, found in a suspicious condition, initiated firing upon the police when stopped and searched. The police retaliated in self-defence, leading to an exchange of gunfire in which two police officers were injured.
The court scrutinized several aspects of the prosecution’s evidence, highlighting significant inconsistencies and contradictions. For instance, the First Information Report (FIR) indicated that the motorcycle used in the commission of the offence was identified through the Citizens-Police Liaison Committee (CPLC), which provided details about the owner and the purchase date. However, during cross-examination, the Investigating Officer contradicted this statement, admitting that records for motorcycles “applied for registration” were not available in CPLC. This contradiction raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative and suggested prior knowledge of the accused by the complainant, thereby undermining the credibility of the evidence regarding the use of the motorcycle.
Further, the court noted material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence. The alleged encounter took place in a densely populated area, yet no independent witnesses from the locality or nearby petrol pump employees were presented. This omission of crucial witnesses cast further doubt on the prosecution’s case. Additionally, despite the encounter taking place during the day, no bullet marks were found on any wall of the street where the incident allegedly occurred, raising questions about the authenticity of the encounter.
The absence of an identification parade following the accused’s arrest further weakened the prosecution’s case. The injured police constable’s testimony was found unreliable as he failed to describe the features of the accused in his initial statement and only identified the accused before the trial court. This inconsistency made it unsafe to uphold the conviction based on his testimony alone.
In light of these evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal against conviction was thus allowed, demonstrating the court’s rigorous scrutiny of evidence in cases involving self-defence claims.
(6) Another pertinent case is Abdul Raheem Shah v. State (2021 MLD 2000), where the accused sought bail on the grounds of self-defence after being charged with qatl-i-amd (murder). The accused’s plea of self-defence was not accepted during investigation nor convincingly presented in court. The medical evidence showed that the deceased received five firearm injuries, while the accused and his witnesses sustained no harm. The court noted that firing five times at the deceased did not align with the plea of self-defence, indicating an excessive use of force. Furthermore, the accused’s act of preventing the deceased from receiving timely medical aid pointed towards aggression rather than self-defence. The court emphasized that the plea of self-defence could only be appropriately addressed after a full trial, leading to the rejection of the bail application.
(7) The case of Adam Khan v. Abdul Khaliq (2020 PCrLJ 124) elaborates on the scope of self-defence of property and person. The court affirmed that the law grants individuals the right to expel intruders or trespassers, even to the extent of causing death if the intruder does not retreat after being warned. This right of self-defence is recognized when the danger to person or property is imminent and continues as long as the danger exists. This case underscores the legal principle that self-defence is justified only under immediate threat and must be proportional to the threat faced.
(8) The case of Muhammad Bilal v. State (2017 PCrLJN 256) from the Karachi High Court also provides a significant perspective. The accused, Muhammad Bilal, was charged under Sections 324 (attempt to commit qatl-i-amd), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), and 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code, along with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act of 2013. The FIR alleged that Bilal fired upon a police party intending to kill them, resulting in a retaliatory response from the police, leading to Bilal sustaining a bullet injury and subsequent arrest.
The court’s decision to refuse bail hinged on the gravity of the offence and the incriminating evidence presented by the prosecution. The forensic evidence, including a medico-legal certificate showing a fresh firearm injury on Bilal’s left thigh and a positive forensic report on the recovered pistol and bullets, substantiated the prosecution’s narrative. Additionally, the consistency in the statements of prosecution witnesses bolstered the prosecution’s case against Bilal. The court noted that Bilal failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his injury or any substantive evidence to support his claim of false implication by the police due to enmity. Consequently, the court found no grounds to grant bail, given the serious nature of the charges and the compelling evidence against the accused.
In another case, Munawar Bacha v. Mst. Basraja Bibi (2016 PCrLJ 1588), the Peshawar High Court addressed the burden of proving that an accused’s case falls within the legal exceptions of self-defence. The accused contended that one of the deceased’s injuries resulted from firing in self-defence. However, the court found the statements of the eye-witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and the site plan, to be more credible. The prosecution presented a consistent chain of evidence, including a forensic report that supported their version of events. The court observed that the accused had not made a serious effort to plead self-defence, either in his initial report or his statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court converted the death sentence into life imprisonment, emphasizing that the accused had not satisfactorily demonstrated a valid claim of self-defence.
(9) In Banaras Shah v. State (2016 MLD 1995), the Peshawar High Court dealt with the issue of bail in cases involving cross versions. The court granted bail to the accused, noting that the incident fell within the definition of a cross version, where both parties had claimed the other as the aggressor. The court emphasized the principle that the primary consideration in such cases is to determine who acted in self-defence and who initiated the aggression. This determination is usually made after recording the evidence, making it a matter of further inquiry. Given the circumstances and the fact that the accused had already been in custody for a considerable time without further investigation requirements, the court allowed the bail application.
(10) In Mudassar Hanif v. State (2016 MLD 502), the Lahore High Court examined the scope of self-defense under Sections 97 and 99 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The accused, a minor, claimed to have fired shots in self-defence to protect himself from the deceased’s sexual advances. The court acknowledged the accused’s lack of motive to kill and his fear-driven reaction, suggesting that the repeated shots might have been due to grave fear. This case highlights the court’s recognition of the subjective experience of fear and the proportionality of the response in determining the validity of self-defence claims.
(11) In Inamullah v. Qudratullah alias Qudrati (2014 MLD 1425), the Peshawar High Court refused bail, noting that the prosecution’s evidence, including the complainant’s eyewitness testimony and fresh forensic evidence, strongly supported the charges against the accused. The court highlighted that merely raising a cross-version plea or claiming self-defence does not automatically entitle the accused to bail. Each case must be scrutinized on its merits, and the presence of incriminating evidence justifies the refusal of bail.
(12) Another such notable case is Abdul Ghaffar alias Billa v. State (2010 YLR 2228) decided by the Lahore High Court, which provides significant insights into how self-defence is evaluated in the context of qatl-i-amd (murder) and related offences.
In this case, the accused, Abdul Ghaffar alias Billa, and his co-accused wife were charged under Sections 302(b)/34 (qatl-i-amd with common intention), 302(c) (causing qatl-i-amd not amounting to qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b)), 324/34 (attempt to commit qatl-i-amd with common intention), 337-F(ii)/34 (causing hurt with common intention), and 337-L(ii)/34 (causing other hurt with common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code. The wife of the accused admitted to the occurrence, claiming she acted in self-defence of her person and property. She was convicted accordingly by the High Court.
The court’s evaluation of the evidence was meticulous. Crime empties secured from the scene did not match the pistol recovered from Abdul Ghaffar, leading to his acquittal. The court found that although Abdul Ghaffar was present at the scene, he did not fire at the deceased or any injured witness. This differentiation in roles and the forensic evidence significantly influenced the court’s decision to acquit him.
Conversely, the female accused’s initial statement to the police on the day of the incident, where she claimed to have fired shots in self-defence, was deemed more plausible. The occurrence took place in the street where the accused resided, and the crime empties collected matched the pistol recovered from her. Additionally, her injury sustained during the incident was proven. These factors led the court to convert her conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) and sentenced her to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, maintaining other convictions and sentences.
This case underscores the judiciary’s approach of closely examining the context, evidence, and circumstances surrounding the claim of self-defence. The differentiation in roles between co-accused and the forensic evidence played a crucial part in the court’s decision-making process.
(13) In the case of Naimat Khan v. State (2010 PCrLJ 964), the Karachi High Court granted bail to the accused in a counter-version scenario where both parties claimed self-defence. The accused was elderly, and the court noted that the truth would only crystallize after recording the evidence, making it necessary to determine which party acted aggressively. This case highlights the court’s cautious approach in pre-trial stages, recognizing the complexity of self-defence claims in counter-version incidents.
(14) Similarly, in Muhammad Ashraf v. State (2009 MLD 1131), the Lahore High Court reiterated that while the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, the burden on the accused to prove self-defence is not as heavy. The court acknowledged that once a plea of self-defence is raised, the burden shifts to the accused under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. This principle ensures that the accused must provide a plausible explanation for their actions, but the primary burden remains on the prosecution.
(15) The Lahore High Court’s decision in Saif Ur Rehman v. State (2008 YLR 260) involved a free fight between two armed parties. The court observed that both parties had suppressed their respective roles, complicating the narrative. The accused acted in self-defence during the occurrence, leading the court to alter the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) and sentence him to 14 years’ rigorous imprisonment. This case underscores the judiciary’s consideration of the broader context and actions of both parties in determining self-defence.
The case of Allah Rakha v. State (2007 YLR 1462) illustrates the court’s careful assessment of proportionality in self-defence claims. The accused exceeded their right of self-defence by resorting to reckless firing, resulting in multiple injuries to the deceased and the complainant. While acknowledging the initial right of self-defence, the court reduced the sentences, emphasizing that the accused had overreacted.
(16) Lahore High Court’s decision in Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2003 PCrLJ 1067), delves into the complexities of self-defence claims amidst conflicting narratives presented by the parties involved.
In this case, Muhammad Afzal was charged under Sections 302(b) and 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing qatl-i-amd (murder). The prosecution’s case and the defence presented two divergent versions of the events. Notably, Afzal did not explicitly invoke the plea of self-defence in his statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the court observed that both parties had not been forthcoming with the complete truth, as evidenced by the serious injuries sustained by three individuals from the accused’s side, including Afzal himself. The prosecution had suppressed these injuries, which indicated that the accused might have acted in self-defence.
Given the evidence, the court concluded that Afzal’s case fell under the provisions of Section 302(c) rather than Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code. This decision reflects the judiciary’s nuanced approach, recognizing the inherent complexities in cases where both parties present conflicting narratives. The conviction was accordingly altered from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c), underscoring the court’s emphasis on a balanced assessment of the evidence and circumstances.
(17) In the case of Piral v. State (2001 YLR 1415), the Karachi High Court highlighted the duty of the court in counter-cases to determine the aggressor and the party subjected to aggression. The court noted that the witnesses had suppressed their roles in the incident, and the plea of self-defence was evident from the prosecution’s evidence. The material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence further cast doubt on the prosecution’s case, leading to the acquittal of the accused. This case underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to meticulously analyze the evidence and discern the actual aggressor in situations involving counter-claims.
(18) The Lahore High Court in Fayyaz Akbar v. The State (2000 YLR 2246) addressed the scope of the right of self-defence extended to a stranger. The court held that even a stranger could exercise the right of self-defence on behalf of a victim if the latter apprehended danger of death or grievous injury. This decision broadens the understanding of self-defence, extending it beyond the immediate parties involved to include third parties acting to prevent imminent harm.
(19) In Ali Muhammad v. The State (2000 PCrLJ 1500), the Karachi High Court dealt with a situation where the accused had taken the plea of self-defence at the earliest opportunity. The court found that the accused had fired two shots, resulting in fatal injuries to the victims, but the injuries sustained by the accused and his companions were not serious. The court concluded that the accused had exceeded the right of private defence, altering the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) and reducing the sentence. This case illustrates the importance of proportionality in exercising the right of self-defence and the court’s role in assessing whether the force used was reasonable and necessary.
(20) The Supreme Court’s decision in Noor Ahmed v. Muhammad Anwar (1999 SCMR 1779) further reinforces the judiciary’s cautious approach in cases involving claims of self-defence. The court granted leave to appeal to reassess the evidence and determine whether the right of self-defence was available to the accused and whether it was a case of free fight or self-defence to protect lives and property. This decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to a thorough reappraisal of evidence to ensure justice.
(21) In Muhammad Javed v. State (1996 SCMR 962), the Supreme Court distinguished the case of the accused from that of acquitted co-accused. The court found that the accused’s plea of self-defence was not credible, as he had admitted to causing injuries with a “Chhuri” (knife) and had failed to substantiate his claim with evidence. This decision underscores the burden on the accused to prove self-defence through cogent evidence and the judiciary’s role in critically evaluating such claims.
(22) The Lahore High Court in Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1991 PCRLJ 1086) dealt with a delayed FIR and untrustworthy eyewitnesses. The court found the defence plea more plausible than the prosecution’s story, acknowledging the possibility of the right of self-defence. The court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304, Part I, recognizing that the accused had exceeded the right of self-defence. This case highlights the judiciary’s careful consideration of the credibility of witnesses and the timing of the FIR in determining self-defence claims.
(23) In Javed Mahmood v. The State (1991 PCRLJ 138), the Lahore High Court upheld the conviction of the accused, finding the prosecution’s evidence reliable and the plea of self-defence false and fabricated. The court emphasized the consistency of eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the weapon as crucial factors in affirming the conviction. This decision underscores the judiciary’s reliance on credible and consistent evidence in adjudicating self-defence claims.
(24) The Supreme Court in Bashir Ahmad v. State (1990 SCMR 1397) dismissed the plea of self-defence, finding that the accused had failed to prove it and that the complainant party was unarmed. The court upheld the death sentence, emphasizing the absence of injuries to the accused and the proven motive for the occurrence. This case illustrates the judiciary’s stringent evaluation of self-defence claims, particularly when the accused fails to provide credible evidence.
(25) Another significant case is Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (1987 PCRLJ 348), decided by the Karachi High Court, which provides a detailed examination of the right of self-defence under Section 304, Part II, of the Pakistan Penal Code.
In Muhammad Ramzan v. The State, the accused delivered a blow to the deceased, resulting in the latter’s death. The primary issue before the court was whether the accused had acted in self-defence. The court found that the incident took place spontaneously and without any provocation from the deceased. The prosecution’s witnesses were consistent in their statements, were independent, and had no enmity against the accused.
Despite the accused’s claim of self-defence, the court concluded that this defence was not borne out by the record. The evidence did not support the notion that the accused had acted to protect himself or his property. Consequently, the plea of self-defence was rejected, and the accused was convicted under Section 304, Part II, of the Pakistan Penal Code.
(25) In the case of Feroze Din v. Ahmad Din (1983 PCRLJ 1912) before the Supreme Court of Azad Kashmir, the court dealt with a scenario where the complainant party, including the deceased, were aggressors attempting to take possession of land by force. The accused defended their property, resulting in the death of one of the aggressors. The court held that the accused had the right to private defence of property to the extent of causing grievous hurt or any injury short of death. This decision illustrates that the right of self-defence extends to protecting property, provided the response is proportionate to the threat posed.
(26) In Zahfran v. The State (1982 PCRLJ 58), the Peshawar High Court rejected the plea of self-defence due to the lack of cogent evidence supporting the accused’s claim. The accused had claimed that he stabbed the deceased to protect his mother, who was allegedly being beaten. However, there was no evidence to corroborate this claim, and the accused had not sustained any injuries during the incident, which negated his apprehension of death or grievous injury. This case emphasizes the requirement for corroborative evidence to substantiate self-defence claims.
(27) The principle of self-defence was also discussed in Imdad Ali v. Shahabuddin (1975 PCRLJ 1145) by the Karachi High Court. The court elaborated on the principle that bail in murder cases should generally be refused unless there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty. The court stated that at the bail stage, it is not permissible to delve into fine questions of evaluating self-defence claims, unless such right is glaringly visible from the initial material. This decision highlights the cautious approach courts take at preliminary stages when considering self-defence claims.
(28) The Supreme Court’s decision in Nazim alias Nazer Biswas v. The Crown (1969 PCRLJ 1138) illustrates a situation where the court accepted the plea of self-defence. The accused, while being chased by aggressors, turned and killed one of them. The court found that the right of self-defence was not exceeded, and the conviction was set aside. This case underscores that self-defence is justified when the accused acts to protect themselves from an immediate threat, even if it results in the aggressor’s death.
(29) In Din Muhammad v. The State (1969 PCRLJ 1527), the Karachi High Court upheld the accused’s right to use reasonable force in self-defence. The accused, who was attacked with lathi blows, used a small knife to stab his attacker. The court held that the accused was justified in causing grievous hurt in self-defence, emphasizing the principle that reasonable force is permissible to prevent harm.
(30) The Dhaka High Court in Tota Mia and 9 others v. The State (1969 PLD 991) dealt with a free fight over the right of passage through land. The court found a preponderance of evidence supporting the accused’s possession of the disputed land and concluded that the accused acted in self-defence. The court emphasized that self-defence can be justified in protecting both person and property when there is a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
(31) The Peshawar High Court in Ghulam Khan v. The State (1965 PLD 11) highlighted the principle that an accused’s statement must be accepted or rejected as a whole in the absence of other evidence. The court found that the accused’s claim of inflicting a fatal injury in self-defence could not be ignored and must be evaluated in the context of the overall evidence.
(32) In Pehliwan v. The State (1961 PLD 208), the Lahore High Court held that in cases of sudden fights where both parties are prepared to engage, the question of self-defence does not arise. This decision underscores the principle that self-defence claims must be supported by evidence of an immediate threat, not mutual combat.
So how has the defence of Self Defence Evolved in Pakistan Over the Decades?
The defence of self-defence in Pakistan has evolved significantly over the decades, reflecting a nuanced approach by the judiciary in balancing the rights of individuals to protect themselves and their property with the need to maintain justice and public order. The development of this defence can be traced through various landmark cases, each contributing to the jurisprudential landscape of self-defence in the country.
In the earlier years, cases like Nazim alias Nazer Biswas v. The Crown (1969 PCRLJ 1138) highlighted the foundational principles of self-defence. In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the right of an individual to defend themselves from an immediate threat, even to the extent of causing the death of the aggressor. This decision underscored the fundamental idea that self-defence is justified when the accused acts to protect themselves from imminent harm.
The case of Din Muhammad v. The State (1969 PCRLJ 1527) further elaborated on the permissible extent of force in self-defence. The Karachi High Court upheld the accused’s right to use reasonable force, including causing grievous hurt, when faced with an unjustified attack. This case reinforced the principle that the force used in self-defence must be proportionate to the threat faced.
As the jurisprudence developed, the courts began to emphasize the importance of corroborative evidence and the immediacy of the threat. In Zahfran v. The State (1982 PCRLJ 58), the Peshawar High Court rejected the plea of self-defence due to a lack of cogent evidence supporting the accused’s claim. The decision highlighted the necessity for the accused to substantiate their claim with credible evidence, ensuring that self-defence is not used as a pretext for unlawful actions.
The case of Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (1987 PCRLJ 348) marked a significant point in the evolution of self-defence jurisprudence. The Karachi High Court rejected the accused’s plea of self-defence, emphasizing that the incident was spontaneous and without provocation from the deceased. This decision underscored the judiciary’s stringent criteria for accepting self-defence claims and the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimony.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, the courts continued to refine their approach to self-defence. The Lahore High Court in Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1991 PCRLJ 1086) acknowledged the possibility of self-defence but stressed the need for the accused to prove that the force used was reasonable and proportionate. The decision highlighted the balance courts seek to strike between the rights of the accused and the overall context of the incident.
The case of Ali Muhammad v. The State (2000 PCrLJ 1500) further illustrated the courts’ emphasis on proportionality. The Karachi High Court found that the accused had exceeded the right of private defence by causing fatal injuries, despite having taken the plea of self-defence at the earliest opportunity. This decision reinforced the principle that while individuals have the right to defend themselves, the response must be proportionate to the threat faced.
In more recent years, the judiciary has continued to uphold these principles while also addressing new contexts and scenarios. The Lahore High Court’s decision in Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2003 PCrLJ 1067) dealt with conflicting narratives from both parties. The court concluded that both parties had not come with clean hands and that the accused had acted in self-defence, altering the conviction to reflect a less severe charge. This decision highlighted the judiciary’s ability to navigate complex cases and provide nuanced judgments based on the evidence presented.
Throughout these decades, the defence of self-defence in Pakistan has evolved to incorporate a more detailed and rigorous evaluation of the circumstances surrounding each case. The courts have consistently emphasized the need for credible and consistent evidence, the immediacy of the threat, and the proportionality of the response. This evolution reflects a commitment to ensuring that self-defence is rightfully applied, protecting individuals while preventing its misuse.
In summary, the development of self-defence jurisprudence in Pakistan demonstrates a careful and balanced approach by the judiciary. From early cases that established foundational principles to more recent decisions that navigate complex scenarios, the courts have consistently sought to uphold justice while safeguarding the legitimate right of individuals to defend themselves and their property. This evolution underscores the dynamic nature of legal interpretation and the judiciary’s role in adapting to changing societal contexts and ensuring a fair application of the law.
Call for Free Legal Advice +92-3048734889
Email : [email protected]
https://joshandmakinternational.com/
