1983 P Cr (PLP)
KHAN MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (KHAN MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 497‑Bail‑Extra‑judicial confession admittedly of weak type of evidence sought to be corroborated by evidence of recoveries of weapon of offence and clothes of petitioner‑Clothes washed before recovery and recovery also being proved by witnesses of extra‑judicial confession‑field, matter requires further enquiry in circumstances of case‑Bail allowed‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for the grant of bail do behalf of Khan Muhammad in a case under section 302, P. P. C, registered at Police Station Harrapa vide F. 1, R. No. 55 datEd 14th Marsh, 1981.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner caused death of Mst. Zohran about 5/7 days before the post‑mortem. The allegations are that on that fateful night, he took Mst. Zohra (his daughter) to the fields. He firstly throttled her with her Dopatta and when she fell down, he gave blows with hatchet on her person and thereby caused her death. During the investigation in order to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence, the police collected following categories of evidence: ‑ (i) extra‑judicial confession before Sultan, Ghulam Sarwar and Ansar Hussain P, Ws. They have stated that on 16th March, 1981 the peti tioner had confessed that he had caused the death of the deceased because she was of bad character; (ii) Recovery.‑On 18th March, 1981 the petitioner allegedly got recovered the hatchet and it appeared that blood had also been washed ; (iii) that on 21st March, 1981. he got recovered his chadar, kurta and shoes ; it appeared that blood had also been washed.
3. These recoveries are also attested by the same witnesses, i.e. of extra‑judicial confession.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the police has collected weak type of evidence. He further submits that the petitioner was inimical towards Sultan Lambardar and some litigation was pending between them at that time.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. He submits that evidence collected by the police is sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
6. After hearing the parties. I find that extra‑judicial confession which is admittedly of weak type of evidence and is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of recoveries of the weapon of offence and clothes of the peti tioner which according to the memos. appear to have been washed before the recovery and the recovery is also being proved by the witnesses, i.e. witnesses of extra‑judicial confession.
7. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that matter requires further inquiry and petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sahiwal. M.Y.M. Bail granted.