 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan 
Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail 
 
Criminal Appeal No. 506 OF 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 10.02.2017 of the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. A. 
No. 1362 of 2013 and M.R. No. 303 of 2013) 
 
Muhammad Ajmal  
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
     Versus 
The State 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         Respondent 
 
For the appellant: 
Raja Rizwan Ibrahim Satti, ASC 
 
For the state: 
 
Mr. Muhammad Usman, Addl.P.G., Punjab 
For the complainant: 
Raja Shafqat Abbasi, ASC 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
07.10.2021 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J. The appellant Muhammad Ajmal 
faced trial in case FIR No. 278 dated 19.03.2010, offence under section 
302 PPC, registered at police station Shorkot City, District Jhang. On the 
conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang vide judgment dated 
11.09.2013, convicted the appellant under section 302 (b) PPC and 
sentenced him to death, with a direction to pay compensation of 
Rs.300,000/-, in terms of section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 
which shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Aggrieved of his 
conviction and sentence, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore. A murder reference was sent by the learned 
trial court for confirmation or otherwise of sentence of death of appellant. 
Through the impugned judgment, the learned High Court dismissed the 
criminal appeal and by converting sentence of death of the appellant into 
imprisonment for life, answered the murder reference in the negative. 
Benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure was extended to him. 
Thereafter, the appellant filed a jail petition before this court, wherein leave 
was granted on 20.08.2020. Hence, the instant criminal appeal.  
2. 
Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset contends that 
leave was granted on the point that whether the case of the appellant 
comes with the parameters of section 302 (c) PPC or not, hence he will 
confine his arguments only to that extent. Learned counsel for the 
Crl. A. No.506/2020 
 
 
 
 
2
complainant contends that motive has been explained during trial and 
even in the FIR a dispute of “lain dain” was mentioned; further contends 
that appellant committed the murder in his own shop hence no further 
leniency can be extended to him. Learned counsel for the complainant 
relied upon the cases reported as Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri Vs. 
The State and others (PLD 2016 SC 17), Muhammad Asif Vs. 
Muhammad Akhtar and others (2016 SCMR 2035) and Sardar 
Muhammad and another Vs. Athar Zahoor and others (2017 SCMR 
1668). 
3. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned 
Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab as well as the learned counsel for 
the complainant and perused the available record with their assistance. 
Before discussing the facts of the present case we would like to discuss the 
parameters which attracts section 302(c) PPC.  
 
An offence under section 302 (c) PPC will be attracted only in those 
cases, where exceptions to old provision of section 300 PPC stand 
attracted. Exception 4 of old section 300 PPC is reproduced as under: - 
“Exception 4:- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is 
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of 
passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having 
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 
Explanation: It is immaterial in such cases which party offers 
the provocation or commits the first assault.  
So bringing the case under the above exception (culpable homicide not 
amounting to murder). It is required to be established that the case was 
one of sudden fight, taken place without any premeditation in the heat of 
passion upon a sudden quarrel and offender had not taken any undue 
advantage and must had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 
4. 
In the case of Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another (PLD 
1996 SC 274) it was held that there should be no doubt that the cases 
covered by the exceptions to the old section 300 PPC read with the old 
section 304, therefore, are cases which were intended to be dealt with 
under clause (c) of the new section 302 of the PPC. Likewise in the case of 
Azmat Ullah v. the State (2014 SCMR 1178) it was held that : 
“It has already been held by this Court in the case of Ali 
Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another (PLD 1996 SC 274) 
that the cases falling in the exceptions contained in the 
erstwhile provisions of section 300, P.P.C. now, attract the 
provisions of section 302(c), P.P.C. The case in hand was surely 
a case of lack of premeditation, the incident was one of a 
sudden fight which was a result of heat of passion developed 
upon a sudden quarrel and no undue advantage had been 
taken by the appellant nor had he acted in a brutal or unusual 
manner. In these circumstances Exception 4 contained in the 
Crl. A. No.506/2020 
 
 
 
 
3
erstwhile section 300, P.P.C. squarely stood attracted to the 
case in hand and, thus, the case against the appellant fell 
within the purview of the provisions of section 302(c), P.P.C.”   
  
The new section 302 itself divides qatl-i-amd for the purpose of punishment 
into three categories i.e.  
a) 
qatl-i-amd, punished with death as qisas; 
b) 
qatl-i-amd, punished with death or imprisonment for life as ta’zir 
c) 
qatl-i-amd, punished with imprisonment of either description for a 
term which may extended to twenty-five years, where according to 
the injunctions of Islam the punishment of qisas is not applicable.  
 
 
Admittedly, in the present case, parties were not inimical to each 
other and there was no previous ill will between the deceased and the 
appellant. In the FIR it is specifically mentioned that during repairing the 
tractor of the deceased, altercation took place between the deceased and 
appellant due to dispute of money. So at the spur of moment, suddenly 
altercation took place and according to prosecution’s own case, there were 
exchange of abuses between both of them and then Muhammad Ajmal 
appellant picked up a hatched lying in the shop and gave a solitary blow to 
Muhammad Naeem Khan deceased. Mehmood Khan, complainant while 
appearing in the court also categorically mentioned that “during repair of 
tractor there was altercation between Naeem Khan and Ajmal accused 
present in court on the transaction of some amount. Abusive language was 
used between them.” The whole prosecution during investigation remained 
silent regarding the detail of “lain dain” and an evasive motive was put up 
in the FIR but during trial Mehmood Khan made improvement that 
actually Ajmal appellant was under debt of Naeem Khan due to which this 
occurrence took place. He was duly confronted with his application Exb-PF 
(through which FIR was chalked out) where this fact was not mentioned. 
The said Mehmood categorically stated that: - 
“We visited workshop of the accused for repair of our 
tractor for the first time, on the date of occurrence”.  
The other alleged eye witness Changaiz Khan also stated as under: - 
“There was altercation and exchange of abusive 
language between Naeem Khan and Ajmal accused. All of 
sudden Ajmal after picking hatchet from his workshop made 
hatchet blow hitting on left side of the neck of Naeem Khan.” 
The above mentioned evidence of both the witnesses clearly indicate that 
the deceased went to the workshop of appellant, for repair of tractor, for 
the first time and in the absence of any previous ill will or grudge, at the 
spur of the moment due to “lain dain” probably regarding the payment of 
work done, by the appellant by repairing the tractor, suddenly there was 
Crl. A. No.506/2020 
 
 
 
 
4
altercation, followed by exchange of abusive language between the 
appellant and deceased, all of a sudden this occurrence took place 
indicating that there was no premeditation and at the spur of the moment 
due to abusive language, in the heat passion, appellant gave a solitary 
blow with the hatched which was lying there. He did not repeat the blow 
although deceased was lying on his mercy. He did not take undue 
advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner. So all the ingredients of 
above exception are born out from the prosecution cases and his case falls 
under section 302 (c) PPC. All the parameters mentioned above clearly 
indicate that it is a case falling under section 302 (c) PPC and not section 
302 (b) PPC. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the 
complainant have different facts and in these cases the ingredient of 
Exception 4 of section 300 (old) PPC were not born out. In the case of 
Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri (supra) this issue was not discussed 
likewise in the case of Muhammad Asif (supra) the accused while taking 
undue advantage gave successive blows to the deceased and also injured 
complainant and a passerby whereas in the case of Sardar Mahmood and 
another (supra) no ingredient of above exceptions were present nor born 
out from the prosecution case whereas in the present case as already 
discussed, ingredient of Exception 4 of section 300 PPC (old) are born out 
from prosecution’s case. Consequently, this criminal appeal is partly 
allowed. The conviction of the appellant is converted from section 302 (b) 
PPC to section 302 (c) PPC and his sentence is reduced to seventeen years 
R.I.. The compensation and sentence in default thereof awarded by the trial 
court and upheld by the High Court shall remain intact. Benefit of section 
382-B Cr.P.C. shall also remain intact.  
  
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Bench-II 
Islamabad 
07.10.2021  
(Atif) 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
