2006 PLP 631 (YLR)
NAZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 631 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J |
| Parties | NAZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 631 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 631 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 631 (YLR) (NAZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 302 & 34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Opinion of police and medical report--Evidentiary value
Petitioner had contended that he was found innocent by Investigating Agency and that per the post-mortem examination report, deceased/ daughter of complainant met natural death suddenly and that she was not subjected to any violence by the petitioner; that Magistrate, while passing impugned order, neither had applied mind consciously nor properly appreciated discharge report which fully supported the case of petitioner; and that no useful purpose would be served by directing Police for submission of challan as despite hectic efforts Investigating Agency had failed to collect evidence connecting petitioner with commission of alleged murder of deceased
Police opinion was not binding on the Court and medical report could also not be considered as conclusive piece of evidence without recording ocular as well as other prosecution evidence
Since prosecution witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. had involved petitioner and medical evidence was also yet to be scanned after recording statement of doctor who conducted post-mortem examination of deceased, it could not, in circumstances, be held that Magistrate, while passing impugned order, had committed any illegality or irregularity by disagreeing with the discharge report and directing Police to submit challan in terms of S.173, Cr. P. C; even otherwise, High Court, while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction, seldom interfered in such-like cases. Habib v. The State 1983 SCMR 370; Mansha and 7 others v. Illaqa Magistrate, Police Station Bhallak, District Faisalabad and 4 others PLD 1997 SC 339 and Falak Sher and another v. The State PLD 1967 SC 425 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.
The petitioner being accused of case F.I.R. No.105 dated 25-5-2005 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Taranda Muhammad Pannah, is aggrieved of the order dated 28-11-2005 passed by learned Magistrate Section-30, Liaqatpur whereby the said Magistrate declined to agree with the discharge report as submitted by the police authorities and further directed the challan to be submitted.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was found innocent by the Investigating Agency and that per post-mortem examination report Mst. Iqbal Mai daughter of the complainant met natural death suddenly and A she was not subjected to any violence by the petitioner; that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order neither applied mind consciously nor properly appreciated the discharge report which fully 'supported the case of the petitioner and that no useful purpose would be served by directing the police?? authorities for submission of challan as despite .hectic efforts the Investigating Agency failed to A collect the evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of the alleged murder of Iqbal Mai daughter of the complainant.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. It is an established principle of law that police opinion is not binding on the Court and similarly the medical report can also be not considered as conclusive piece of evidence without recording ocular as well as other prosecution evidence. Since the prosecution witnesses in their statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. have involved the petitioner and medical evidence is also yet to be scanned after recording the statement of the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased, it therefore, cannot be held that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order committed any illegality or B irregularity by disagreeing with the discharge report and directing the police authorities to submit challan in terms of section 173, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, in the light of law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Habib v. The State" 1983 SCMR 370, "Mansha and 7 others v. Illaga Magistrate, Police Station Bhallak, District Faisalabad and 4 others" PLD 1997 Supreme Court 339 and "Falak Sher and another v. The State" PLD 1967 Supreme Court 425, this Court while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction seldom interferes in such-like matters. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed in limine being devoid of any merit. H.B.T./N-117/L?????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.