Name : Ali Raza Zahid ID # F2018117020

Subject : Criminal law I Final Term

Question 3:

Define any five (5) following terms (2 marks each).

i. Theft:-
The generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally takes personal property of another
without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including
potential sale).

ii. Dacoity

When five or more persons co-jointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery or where the whole
number of persons co-jointly committed or attempting to commit a robbery and persons present
and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing,
attempting or aiding is said to commit Dacoity.

iii. Qisas

Qisas (Arabic) is an Islamic term meaning retaliation, similar to the biblical principle of an eye
for an eye. In the case of murder, it means the right of the heirs of a murder victim to demand
execution of the murderer.

iv. Diyat

DIYAT in Islamic law is the financial compensation paid to the victim or legal heirs of the
victim in the case of murder or bodily harm or property damage. ... In many cases hardened
criminals are being pardoned by the family members of the deceased person on account of diyat
which is according to the injunctions of Islam.

v. Arsh

Arsh is compensation specified in the newly added Chapter XVI, P.P.C. for offences relating to
various kinds of hurt. It is to be assessed at certain percentage of the value of Diyat. It is to be
paid in lump sum or in instalments in default the convict is liable to simple imprisonment.

Question 1:

What do you understand by the term Qatal-e-Amd. Write essential ingredients of Qatal-e-
Amd liable to Qisas as provided u/sec 304 of PPC and also what punishments have been
provided for Qatal-e-Amd?
Ans :-

Qatl-i-Amd

When someone intends to purpose demise or physical damage to any other person, does an act,
which in normal direction of nature is probably to purpose demise or that is finished with know-
how that his act is so imminently risky that it should in all opportunity purpose demise, and
reasons demise of such person, he/she commits qatl-i-amd.

Essential Ingredients of Qatl-e-Amd Under Section -three hundred of P.P.C

The critical elements of the definition of Qatl-i-Amd as supplied withinside the Pakistan Penal
Code are as follows

I. Causing demise of a human being

Illustrations

“A” shoots “Z” with the goal of killing him. “Z” dies in Consequences “A” commits this offence.

Qatl-e-amd liable to Qisas:

Proof of Qatl-e-amd shall be in any of the following forms namely:

(a) the accused makes before a Court competent to try the offence a voluntary and true
confession of the commission of the offence; or (b) by the evidence as provided in Article 17 of
the Oanun-e Shahadat, Order 1984 (P.O. No.10 of 1984).

1 The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to a hurt liable to Qisas.

Punishment Against Qatl-i-Amd

Followings punishments may be offered towards fee of Qatl-i-Amd

(i) Death as Qisas

A person, who commits Qatl-i-amd, may be punished with demise as Qisas.

Qisas

Qisas means ‘to replicate the other’ or ‘to observe the direction observed via way of means of
other’ or ‘to behave just like the act of any other’. The simple precept of Qisas is similarity. If
similarity of damage isn't feasible Qisas won't be enforce. In Qatl-i-Amd the distinction among
punishment of Qisas and punishment of demise lies withinside the mode of execution of
sentence.

(ii) Death or Imprisonment For lifestyles

The punishment of demise or imprisonment for lifestyles as tazir in particular while evidence
towards fee of such qatl isn't to be had thru voluntary and proper confession of convict earlier
than a courtroom docket capable to attempt such qatl consistent with Article 17 of Qanun-e-
Shahadat.

(iii) Imprisonment, that can enlarge to 20 5 years

When punishment of Qisas isn't relevant towards fee of qatl-i-amd consistent with Injunctions of
Islam, someone, who commits qatl-i-amd, may be punishment with imprisonment, that can
enlarge to 20-5 years

Question 2:

No person can be punished twice for the same offence; justify the statement with the help of
at least one Case Law.

Ans :-

Meaning of Double Jeopardy

The term “Doubly Jeopardy” means “Trail for the same offence”.

4. Rule of Double Jeopardy u/s 403 Cr.P.C

Section 403 Cr.P.C contemplates a situation where a person has once been tried by a court of
competent jurisdiction and acquitted or convicted by such. Cannot be tried again for the same
offence or for any other offence based on similar facts.

5. Conditions

In order to bar the trial of any person already tried, it must be shown that

i. He has been tried by the competent court for the same offence, or one for which he might have
been charged or convicted at that trial, on the same facts.

ii. He has been convicted or acquittal is in force.

The rule of English Law, requiring the accused to have been tried as weel as acquitted in order to
bar further proceedings and embodied in this section, is inapplicable to statutory acquittals under
section 494, 247 and 345.

6. Provisions of Law

Criminal Procedure code have provided following provisions in respect of double jeopardy:

a. Prohibition against Trial for Same offence

A person, who has been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and has been
convicted or acquitted of such offence, should not be liable to be tried again for the same offence
especially when such conviction or acquittal remains in force.

b. Prohibition against trial on same facts for any other offence

A person, who has been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence, should not be
liable to be tried again on the same facts for any other offence for which a charge might have
been made under section No. 236 of Criminal procedure Code when such charge is different
from that charge, which has been made against him or for which he might have been convicted
under section No. 237 of Criminal Procedure Code.

c. Trial for any distinct offence

A person, who has been acquitted or convicted of any offence, can afterwards, be tried for any
distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him on former trial
under subsection 1 of Section No. 235 of criminal procedure code.
d. Trial for different offence

If a person has been convicted of any offence and such offence has been constituted by any act
and such act has caused those consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different
offence from that of which was convicted, such person can be afterwards tried for such last-
mentioned offence when the consequences have not happened or we not known to court to have
happened at that time when he was convicted.

e. Trial for any other offence

When a person has been acquitted or convicted of any offence, which has been constituted by
any acts, even then he, after such acquittal or conviction, can be subsequently charged with and
tried for any other offence, which has been constituted by the same acts, which he may have
committed if court, which first tried him, was not competent to try that offence with which he is
subsequently charged.

Case Law : 2003 MLD 1050. Mansoor Ahmed V/S The State (Karachi DB)

S.497 CrPC. Art. 13(a) of 1973 Constitution. S.403 CrPC. S.409 PPC. Accused was tried first by
Military Court but later, upon lifting of martial law, case was tried by magistrate and lastly case
was ordered to be transferred to Sessions Court. Prosecution had not come to any conclusion in
the said forums. Fresh prosecution for the same offence was barred only where such prosecution
had finally been concluded and resulted either in acquittal or conviction. Fresh trial of accused,
was in no way derogatory to principle of double jeopardy as enunciated in Art.13(a) of
Constitution. Rule against “autrefois acquit” found place in S.403 CrPC and counterpart of said
rule viz. “autrefois convict” had received recognition per Art.13(a). Constitutional guarantee was
only available if the accused was convicted and sentenced in earlier prosecution. Accused having
neither been convicted nor acquitted as in none of the forums prosecution had come to any
conclusion, second trial of the accused was neither violative of Art.13(a) nor in contravention of
S.403 CrPC BAIL REFUSED.