1992 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Gondal and Hafiz Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th Fabruary,1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 279/338‑‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑‑Accused allegedly caused fracture of leg of complainant by rash and negligent driving of car‑‑‑Name, parentage and residence of accused was mentioned in F.I.R--‑Complainant admitted to have known name of accused on the date when be made statement before Court‑‑‑Witnesses were contradicted as to lodging of F.I.R. after or before arrest of accused‑‑‑Claim of witnesses to have identified accused at time of occurrence was not correct‑‑‑No test identification parade was held‑‑ Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt‑‑‑Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances. Begum Nasim Gulsher for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Akram Gondal and Hafiz Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner. Begum Nasim Gulsher for the State. Date of hearing: 11th Fabruary,1991. Muhammad Afzal, petitioner, was tried under section 279/338, P.P.C for causing fracture of the leg of Lal Hussain by driving car rashly and negligently. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced six witnesses. Zafar lqbal P.W.1 and Lai Hussain P.W.3 are the eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. They stated that the car rashly driven by the petitioner had struck Lal Hussain PW‑3 resulting ii: the fracture of his leg. Dr.Major Asghar Ali P.W.4 found one injury on the leg of Lal Hussain. The trial Court convicted the petitioner on 4‑1‑1982 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.100 under section 279, P.P.C. and to one year's R.I. under section 338, P.P.C. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence of one year's R.I. to six months' R.I.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not identified at the time of occurrence and, as such he was not subjected to identification parade and that the F.I.R. was lodged after preliminary investigation. The learned counsel for the State has opposed him.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that in the F.I.R. the name, parentage and the place of residence of the petitioner is mentioned whereas Lai Hussain in his statement before the Court stated that he had come to know the name of the accused‑petitioner for the first time on that date in the Court. This will show that the F.I.R. was lodged after the arrest of the petitioner whereas according to Zafar Iqbal P.W.1 and Lal Hussain P.W3, the petitioner A was not arrested by the time when the F.I.R. was recorded. For these reasons, I feel that the claim of the witnesses that they had identified the petitioner at the time of occurrence is incorrect. Furthermore, no identification parade was held. In these circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
5. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bonds. SA./M‑3044/L Revision accepted.