ISLAMABAD - Pakistan Tehreek-e-insaf member of Sindh Assembly Syed Imran Shah on Monday contended before the Supreme Court that his act of assault on a citizen Daud Chauhan in Karachi was not an offence under Section 352 of Pakistan Penal Code.
The newly-elected MPA from the constituency PS-129 explained that the act of assault by him was a right of self-defence hence it was non-cognizable under section 352.
“The answering Respondent’s (Shah) act was unintentional, lacking the element of Mens Rea, without any preparation in any manner whatever. The act of using criminal force is non-cognizable and compoundable offence under section 352 and the parties have settled the matter amicably,” he added.
Shah stated this in his three-page reply submitted to the top court on a suo motu notice taken by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on physical assault on a citizen in Karachi. The Chief Justice while taking the notice on August 18 had directed Shah and aggrieved Daud Chauhan to submit their replies with the top court within 3 days.
The notice was taken on a video clip which went viral on social media, wherein PTI MPA Shah and his guards were manhandling Chauhan on a busy road at Karachi.
He stated that assault on the citizen was in self-defence and without any intention.
Shah in his reply stated that he saw a car near National Stadium with an official number plate driven by someone who was repeatedly hitting another car parked at a roadside. Shah stated that a person was sitting in the parked car. He said that he apprehended the driver of the car, which was aiming to hit the parked car either to hurt or kill the person inside the car.
Shah narrated the background of the incident and stated that he came out of his car to save a human life but the driver Daud Chauhan of the car that was hitting the other car showed immense anger and started abusing and exchanged harsh words. Shah claimed that he approached him to stop him from the abuse.
“The answering respondent (Shah) thought that if he was not stopped, there and then he (Chauhan) might hurt the answering respondent or someone else present there. The answering respondent reacted in self-defence, quite contrary to his normal behaviour. The action was so sudden that the answering respondent was left with no option but to defend him and use the force to counter the attack of the said person,” he added.
He further stated that later he considered it to be a moral obligation and tendered an apology after visiting Chauhan’s residence. Chauhan also graciously accepted the apology and the matter was resolved, it added.
“The video film of the incidence was focused on the answering respondent (Shah) and as such the reaction of Chauhan was neither captured nor aired to portray the complete picture. There was no intention on part of the answering respondent to assault or use criminal force and the way the answering respondent acted was in the exercise of right of self-defence.”
Shah requested the top court to accept the submissions and exonerate him by granting pardon.
SYED SABEEHUL HUSSNAIN