ppti.info Personal Growth Pakistan Penal Code 1860 Pdf

PAKISTAN PENAL CODE 1860 PDF

Monday, May 27, 2019


This Act shall be called the Pakistan Penal Code, and shall take effect Throughout this Code every definition of an offence, every penal provision and every. Pakistan Penal Code. (XLV OF). [6th October, ]. CONTENTS. CHAPTER - I. INTRODUCTION. Preamble. 1. Title and extent of operation of the Code. 2. PAKISTAN PENAL. CODE. (ACT NO. XLV OF ). [6th October, ]. CHAPTER I Punishment of offences committed within Pakistan.


Pakistan Penal Code 1860 Pdf

Author:REGINA MCELWEE
Language:English, Spanish, Arabic
Country:Austria
Genre:Personal Growth
Pages:490
Published (Last):02.03.2015
ISBN:750-3-52441-797-7
ePub File Size:24.44 MB
PDF File Size:19.70 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Downloads:45195
Uploaded by: BEULAH

SHAHIDA REHMANI, to move for leave to introduce a Bill further to amend the Pakistan Penal. Code, (XLV of ) [The Pakistan Penal. WHEREAS it is expedient further to amend the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of. ), for the purposes hereinafter appearina: It is hereby enacted as. WHEREAS it is expedjent further to amend the Pakistan Penal Code, (Act (XL'/ of ), hereinafter referred to as Penal Code, in section in the.

The subsequent offence must have been committed after the previous conviction, i.

Section 34 of the pakistan penal code deals with constructive criminality i. This section was introduced in order to meet the cases in which it may be difficult to apportion the liability of each. Since it is difficult to distinguish precisely the.

Related Post: NBC CODE BOOK PDF

SEction 34 does not create a distinct offence, it only lays down the principle of joint criminal liability.

So it is a rule. The words " furtherance of common intention " have been the subject of much discussion amongst the lawyers and. One common agreed point has, however, been that furtherance of commonly design is the condition precedent for joint. The words common intention means unity of purpose or a pre-arranged plan. Participation by all the accused in doing act or acts in furtherance of that common intention. Section , like section 34, is the other instance of constructive joint liability.

Section creates a specific. The essence of offence under section of pakistan penal code is assembly of several persons not less than five in. Section creates joint liability of all. Act done is for prosecution of the common object of the assembly, or such which was likely to be committed in. Members have voluntarily joined the unlawful assembly and know the common object of the assembly. To a certain extent both sections are overlapping and both can be invoked against the accused when there is no.

But it was pointed out in a case by privy. Common object is different than. At least two persons are required to share the common intention under. Section 85 of Pakistan penal code lays down that nothing is an offence whis is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nture of act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

The ingredients of this section are that a person will be exonerated from liability for an act done while in a state of intoxication if he at the time of doing it, by reason of intoxication was:. That the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowleged or against his will. Voluntary drunkness is no excuse for the commission of the crime. But if a man is made drunk through stratagem or the fraud of others, or through ignorance, or through any other means against his will, he is excused.

Section 86 of pakistan penal code further says that a person voluntarily drunk will be deemed to have the same knowledge and liable for the consequences as he would have had if he had not intoxicated. The section attributes to a drunken man the knowledge of a sober man when judging of his action ,. Injuring or defiling a place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with intent to insult the religion of any class of persons. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs section A Voluntarily disturbing a religious assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies.

Trespassing in any place of worship , or burial place, offering any indignity to a human corpse, with intent to wound the feelings or religion of any person.

Uttering words or making signs with the intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person. Using derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Passenger. Section A The excuse of necessity or compulsion as a defence for an act cannot be pleaded except as provided in Section 94 of. That section lays down that except murder and offences against the State punishable with. Provided the. This section will not, however, save.

Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

But if he is seized by a. It is thus clear from the above that a person is excused from the consequences of any act, except murder and offences.

It has been held that the accused was not entitled to the protection of Section 94 of the Code in. There must be the apprehension of force upon the person and fear. Section , lays down that "whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under the above section.

A fails in the attempt in. A is guilty of an offence under the above section. Subject to, certain limitations the law gives a right to every person to defend his body or property, or the body or property of another person against unlawful aggression. He may protect his right by his own force or prevent it from being violated. It is a right inherent in a man. But the kind and amount of force is minutely regulated by law. This use of force to protect one's property and person is called the right of private defence.

Section 97 lays down that every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained ih Section 99, to defend his own body and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body.

Section of the Code provides that the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence the offence though, the offence may not have been committed; and it commences as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. It is clear from the wording of the section that.

The extent to which the exercise of the right will be justified will depend not on the actual danger but on whether there was reasonable apprehension of such danger. There must be an attempt or threat, and consequent thereon an apprehension of danger, but it should not be a mere idle threat.

There must be reasonable ground for the apprehension. The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant if the offence occasioning the exercise of the right be of any of the following descriptions, viz. For the purpose of exercising the right of private defence physical or mental incapacity of the person against whom the right is exercised is no bar.

There is, however, no right of private defence:. The measure of defence must bear proportion to the quantum of force used by the attacker and which it is necessary to repeL Thus where the accused who was attacked by another with a Kirpan succeeded in disarming his opponent by taking away hls weapon and showered blows after blows including the serious ones on the chest, it was held that he must be held to have exceeded the right of self defence and was guilty under section , part 1 of pakistan penal code.

An act done in exercise of the right of private defence is not an offence and does not, therefore, give rise to any right of private defence in return. Defensive action is justified only when positive overt act of damage or harm is set in motion. The law does not confer a right of self-defence on a man who goes and seeks an attack on himself by his own threatened attack on another' -an'attack which was likely to end in the death of the other.

The right of self-defence conferred- by the law or Preserved by the law for an individual is a very narrow and circumscribed right and can be taken advantage of only when the circumstances fully justify the exercise of such a right. If you don't receive any email, please check your Junk Mail box. If it is not there too, then contact us to info docsity.

If even this does not goes as it should, we need to start praying! This is only a preview. Load more. Search in the document preview.

They provide punishment: The above provisions however, do not extend to the case in which the harbour is given by the wife or husband of the person harboured, sections , , A The above However, presupposes that some offence has been actually committed and that the harbourer gives refuge to a person knowingly that thereby he helps to evade his apprehention or screens him from legal punishment.

Solitary confinement is colloquially referred to in American English as the 'hole', 'lockdown', the 'SHU' pronounced 'shoe' or the 'pound', and in British English as the 'block' or the 'cooler' This is a kind of imprisonment which secludes the prisoner from any intercourse or sight of, and communication with other prisoners.

In the words of chief justice Cockburn, " proposition of law can be more incontestable or more universally admitted than that, according to the general law of nations, a foreigner, though criminally responsible to the law of the nation not his own for acts done by him while within the limits of its territory, cannot be made responsible to its law for acts done beyond such limits. Sedition section A of pakistan penal code. War against the government of any asiatic power at peace with pakistan or committing depredations on the territories of such power sections - of pakistan penal code 5.

The above section does not create a substantive offence, but only imposes a liability to enhanced punishment under the following conditions: The subsequent offence must be an offence punishable with three years imprisonment or more. The subsequent offence must fall under chapter XII or chapter XVII and be punishable with three years imprisonment or more before section 73 of the pakistan penal code can be made applicable. This section was introduced in order to meet the cases in which it may be difficult to apportion the liability of each member according to his participation in the commission of the crime.

Since it is difficult to distinguish precisely the part taken by each member of a group, it was thought necessary to declare all the persons equally liable for the acts done. So it is a rule of evidence only and does not create a substantive offence. The words " furtherance of common intention " have been the subject of much discussion amongst the lawyers and conflicting interpretations have been put forth.

One common agreed point has, however, been that furtherance of commonly design is the condition precedent for joint liability under section Two or more persons. They must have a common intention to commit an offence. It runs as under: The essence of offence under section of pakistan penal code is assembly of several persons not less than five in any case having one or more of the common objects mentioned in section Section creates joint liability of all members of an unlawful assembly for criminal for criminal act done by any member in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly.

So the essential ingredints of sectin , P. C are: There must be an unlawful assembly as defined in section of ppc. Criminal act must be done by member of such assembly.

Act done is for prosecution of the common object of the assembly, or such which was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object 4. But it was pointed out in a case by privy council that there is uch difference in the scope and applicability of section 34 and inspite of their similarity. Section is wider in its sweep and longer in its reach than section The actual participation in action is the essential element of section 34 but membership of the unlawful assembly is the leading feature of section PPC.

Section 34 merely declares a rule of criminal liability but section creates a specific offence. Common object is different than common intention as it does not require prior concert and a common meeting of minds but an unlawful object is developed when people assembled together. At least two persons are required to share the common intention under section 34 but for applicability of section unlawful assembly must consist of atleast 5 persons.

The ingredients of this section are that a person will be exonerated from liability for an act done while in a state of intoxication if he at the time of doing it, by reason of intoxication was: That he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.

That section lays down that except murder and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the person doing the act did not, of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.

This section will not, however, save a person who, of his own accord or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits. But if he is seized by a gang of dacoits and forced by threat of instant death to do a thing which is an offence by law.

It is thus clear from the above that a person is excused from the consequences of any act, except murder and offences against the State punishable with death, done under fear of instant death ;but fear of hurt or even of grievous hurt is not a sufficient justification. It has been held that the accused was not entitled to the protection of Section 94 of the Code in the case where the threat of instant death was present at the beginning or even some time afterwards but did not continue till the end of the commission of an offence.

There must be the apprehension of force upon the person and fear of death, and this force and fear must continue to be present at the time of the act.

The points which require proof under the above section are: A fails in the attempt in consequence z's having nothing in his pocket. It is clear from the wording of the section that the right commences and continues as long as danger to body lasts.

Apprehension of grievous hurt. Intention of committing rape. Intention of committing un-natural lust. Intention of kidnapping or abducting. Intention of wrongfully confining a person, when he apprehends that he is unable to recourse to public authorities for his release.

Apprehension of house-breaking by night.

Mischief by fire committed on any dwelling place. Theft, mischief or house trespass and danger of death or grievous hurt. The use of the Right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of Force in times of danger is available in many Jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely. Such right was granted by almost all nations of the worlds in same way as embodied in PPC, to protect and promoted equality and justice in the society, with consideration to strengthen the wellbeing of the people to apply rational mind in difficult situation to protect their life and property form assault of the transgressor subject to some restriction that the law imposes.

Limitation, the right of self defence of body or property is subject to restrictions contained in section.

Pakistan Penal Code Exam Short Notes, Past Exams for Law

No right of private defence was available if the public servant had acted in good faith and under colour of his office. Right of self-defence was to be used as a shield to ward off on warranted attack to person or property, but it could not be used as vehicle for provoking an attack. Right of self-defence was to be exercised as a preventive measure and not for launching an attack for retaliatory purpose. Court would have to examine such question with reference to the facts of each case and keeping in view the state of mind of the person placed in the position of the person attacked who exercised the right of private defence.

Encounter would not entitle a Police party to kill indiscriminately the persons who were allegedly involved in the encounter as the basic requirement provided in S.

Indian Penal Code

Applicability, Contention of the prosecution was that even if it was admitted that the accused and co-accused had acted in self-defence, it was evident on record that they had exceeded such defence by taking the life of the deceased. Validity, Defence side had categorically contended that the deceased and the injured prosecution witness were armed, therefore, despite disarming of the said injured witness by the co-accused, there still remained an apprehension of imminent danger of death or grievous hurt from the armed-deceased to the accused and co- accused, Concluding that the accused and co-accused had exceeded the right of self- defence, in circumstances, would not be fair.

Which cast serious doubt in the prosecution story and rendered the testimony of the complainant devoid of intrinsic value and inherent worth? Presence of the accused at the time and place of occurrence, in circumstances, became highly doubtful; therefore he could not be safely relied upon. Co-accused was admittedly seventy 70 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence and no overt act had been' attributed to him except his mere presence at the time and place of occurrence, therefore, his false implication could not be ruled out.

No motive was alleged against the deceased and the injured prosecution witness. No production of the material witness against whom the motive was particularly alleged by the complainant also made the prosecution version doubtful. Trial Court had rightly concluded that the defence plea appeared to be plausible and convincing in all fairness of the facts and circumstances of the case and that the prosecution had failed to bring the guilt of the accused and co-accused home beyond any reasonable doubt.

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Where the force used is grossly out of proportion to the danger precipitated by the assailant or the force used after the danger is over that the law considers such force to be in excess of the right of self- defence and imposes punishment.

Person Acting under apprehension of death or grievous hurt-Cannot be expected to judge situation too nicely and modulate his defence step by step-Question to be determined is whether there was reasonable apprehension of danger. Death if caused in exercise of right of private defence, held, no offence and question of application of Exception II to S.

Alibi and self defence. When accused admits that he was not present at the place of occurrence by taking the plea of alibi then he cannot claim right of private defence, as it is self-destructive.

Plea of right of private defence can be taken by a person who admits the act charged against him but pleads an excuse. If a person states that he did not do the act at all, it is difficult to see how at the same time the question of right of private defence would arise.

Such fact by itself is sufficient to discard the plea of right of private defence. Accused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by Trial Court, which was maintained by High Court. Trial Court acquitted the complainant party and instead of holding any party as aggressor, declared the incident as of free fight.

Burden was upon accused to prove that their case had come within the general exceptions of Penal Code, but no evidence was led or through cross examination any fact had been brought on the record to create a reasonable doubt upon prosecution story, therefore, accused failed to prove their plea.

High Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a right conclusion that accused party was aggressor. Accused had no right of private defence and they failed to prove their plea of alibi, therefore, conviction and sentence awarded to accused were maintained. Non-raising of such plea. Duty of Court. Trial Court acquitted complainant party and instead of holding any party as aggressor, declared the incident as of free fight.

Pakistan Penal Code 1860 PDF | Downlaod Updated PPC

Validity Accused if not had raised the plea of self- defence during trial either in his statement under S. As benefit of cross-version was given to accused of cross-case, same would be extendable to both the accused particularly when two eyewitnesses were injured but had charged the acquitted co- accused as well for causing injuries to them.

Both the Courts below had found that there was a cross-case and no definite finding could be given about aggression made by both the accused, therefore, they were entitled to benefit of doubt. Convictions and sentences awarded to both the accused were set aside and they were acquitted of the charges.

If accused wants to take benefit of exception of right of private defence, then he is required to show that he was not responsible or at fault or on account of his act the occurrence took place; that honestly believed that his life was under immediate danger; that also believed that there was no reasonable cause available to escape or avoid necessity; and that had no intention to cause more harm than necessary for the purpose.

Whenever there is fight between parties, it is essential to determine as to which party was aggressor. Once it is clearly established that one of the parties started the attack, the other party would have a right to private defence.

Before invoking the right of private defence, burden of proof is always on prosecution and it is only when a good prima facie case has been made out against accused sufficient to justify his conviction for that offence, then burden shifts upon the accused to prove that he is not guilty of any offence.

Such shift of burden upon accused is not analogous to that of prosecution to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt but the test as to whether accused was entitled to the benefit of right of private defence is not whether he has proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt but whether in setting up any defence he has created a reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution and thereby earned his right of acquittal that can be done either leading evidence or through cross- examination of witnesses or from the prosecution evidence itself.

Even then entire evidence is to be looked into and upon consideration of such evidence it is to be seen as to whether or not a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court that accused is entitled to the benefit of private defence; upon answer of such question, plea of accused should be decided. Credible evidence or circumstances to indicate that causing of death was necessary to save the life of the accused are to be present in case of murder. Indication present that accused suffered firearm injuries in course of occurrence but prosecution conveniently omitting to explain same.

Accused, likewise, failing to account for fire-arm injuries and stab wounds on person of deceased. The court thus held that accused can still claim benefit of omissions and doubts appearing in prosecution evidence such as raise a presumption of existence of a right of private defence.Forgot your password?

Section Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of five thousand rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. The object of punishments being preventive, Penal policy of state should be to protect the society.

The most disturbing shortcoming of this Act is its definition of honor killing. I authorize the treatment of my personal data for promotional and advertising communications and activities realized by Docsity. Click here to sign up. As such, any one of his fam- ily members may pardon him and save him from capital punishment. The Pakistani Apex Courts while recognizing the plea of Self Defense provided certain guide lines for the trial courts so as to avoid any mistake of judgments since it is the core principle of administration of justice that accused should not be convicted if there is a minute doubt on part of the prosecution.

STEVIE from Arizona
Browse my other articles. I take pleasure in roller derby. I do fancy lightly .