2009 PLP 1438 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ATIF NIZAMI and others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1438 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ATIF NIZAMI and others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1438 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1438 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1438 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ATIF NIZAMI and others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.265-K & 561-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34
Application for acquittal and quashing of F.I.R.
Witness had not been named in F.I.R., while he being a vegetable vendor, his presence at the place of incident was to be supported by corroborative evidence
F.I.R. was silent regarding the presence of any other person, except the person named in F.I.R.
Witness had not given any identification of accused persons, nor motorcycle number etc.
Evidence which had been brought on record was so remote that it was difficult for the prosecution to connect accused persons with the crime
Evidence of witness hardly linked accused persons with the alleged crime and even they had not been named in the F.I.R.
No probability was available in such situation to connect accused persons with the commission of crime
Proceedings of F.I.R. were quashed and accused were acquitted.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.
Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. This is an application for acquittal on the ground that the applicants have falsely been involved in this crime only on the basis of evidence of one witness, Shahid Hussain, whose presence himself is doubted at the place of incident and that the witness has recognized the applicants before the Magistrate after about one year, by alleging that he saw the glimpse of the applicants while running on the motorcycle. Learned counsel submits that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R. not they are remotely connected with the F.I.R. Learned Additional prosecutor General, has not supported the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, of rejection of application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. He submits that it would have been difficult for the witness, who had seen glimpse of the applicants, to recognize them after about a year, therefore, he submits that applicants were arrested in an encounter with the police after a year and thereafter this case has been opened while the police earlier has submitted report as A Class. After hearing the learned counsel, it appears that the witness Shahid Hussain has not been named in the F.I.R. while he is vegetable vendor and his presence at the place of incident is to be supported by corroborative evidence. The F.I.R. is silent in respect to the presence of any other person except the persons named in the F.I.R. Moreover, the witness has not given any identification of the applicants nor the Motorcycle number etc. It has further been observed that the evidence which has been brought on record is so remote that there will be difficult for the prosecution to connect the applicants with the crime. The piece of evidence of witness Shahid Hussain hardly links-up the applicants with the alleged crime, who has not been named in the F.I.R. In such a situation, there is no probability of connection of the applicants with the commission of crime, hence the .proceedings of F.I.R. No.296/2005/ under section 324/34, P.P.C. are quashed and the applicants are acquitted. H.B.T./M-170/K F.I.R. quashed.