2008 PLP 1549 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1549 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1549 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1549 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1549 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.
The appellant has challenged judgment dated 26-9-2000 passed by learned Judl. Magistrate Ist Class in private complaint filed by the appellant against Muhammad Umar and Abdul Ghafoor under section 337-A (i)(ii), L(b), 34, P.P.C. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant got registered F.I.R. No.420/97 under section 337-A (i)(ii), L(ii) 34, P.P.C. at P.S. Factory Area, Faisal abad and the case was found false and the respondents/accused were discharged by the Judl. Magistrate due to which the appellant filed private complaint which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. The allegation in the complaint is that the appellant's daughter namely, Riffat was married to Muhammad Umar three years ago and out of the wedlock three daughters were born and Muhammad Umar intended to contract second marriage and with the advice of his father Abdul Ghafoor and mother Hashamt, co-accused, Mst. Riffat left her husband's house on 28-7-1997 at 8 a.m. along with her daughters. The accused tried to take away her grand daughters on which quarrel took place and Muhammad Umar gave 'bala' blow on the head of his daughter and Abdul Ghafoor also gave Danda blow. After recording the prosecution evidence and the Court -witnesses, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and the trial culminated into acquittal of the respondents. Abdul Ghafoor, respondent died meanwhile, therefore, to his extent the appeal has become infructuous. Muhammad Umar, respondent is present in person. According to learned counsel for the appellant ocular account furnished by the complainant at Riffat Bibi injured was corroborated by medical evidence and the case against the respondent was proved beyond shadow of doubt. Muhammad Umar respondent, learned State counsel have opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment. I have given due consideration to the contentions raised at the bar and have also examined the record. The reasons given by the learned trial Court in para-17 of the judgment finding discrepancies in the statements of the P.Ws. and contradictions in medical evidence and the ocular account are borne out from the record. The appraisal made by the trial Court is upto the norms and standard laid down by the Superior Courts and the Courts are always reluctant to interfere in the judgment of acquittal, therefore, I find no illegality, misreading or misappreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed having no force. H.B.T./M-534/L Appeal dismissed.