2020 PLP 1214 (SCMR)
KAMRAN ULLAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1214 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | KAMRAN ULLAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1214 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1214 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1214 (SCMR) (KAMRAN ULLAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Talat Mahmood Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Sharif Janjua, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Anis M. Shahzad, Advocate Supreme Court with Umar Nawaz, ASI for the State.
- Dil M. Khan Alizai, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against order dated 15.4.202 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench in Crl. Misc. B.A. No. 142-B of 2020)
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)
Qatl-i-amd
Accused and co-accused were implicated for the murder of deceased through supplementary statement of complainant, wherein it was stated that the motive for the murder was a monetary dispute between the parties
Co-accused pursuant to a disclosure, led to the recovery of a .30 caliber pistol, a weapon that did not forensically tally with the casings secured during spot inspection
Semi burnt cell phone handsets used by the deceased, concealed underneath the soil, were recovered at instance of the accused
Complainant's strong belief about culpability of accused notwithstanding, evidentiary value of various pieces of evidence collected by prosecution had to survive judicial scrutiny to cross the barriers of rules of evidence; and such exercise had admittedly not yet commence (during trial)
Prosecution for the time being was not possessed with any digital proof to establish nexus between the deceased and the recovered handsets
Call Detail Record (C.D.R.) purportedly suggestive of conversation between the deceased and the accused shortly before his death, did not contain any contents/details thereof
Case of accused squarely fell within the remit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed and accused was released on bail. Anis M. Shahzad, Advocate Supreme Court with Umar Nawaz, ASI for the State. Dil M. Khan Alizai, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Aftab Alam, 35/36, left home at about 7:00 p.m.; his wife, as stated by him, expected her to return shortly thereafter, however, upon failure to return, became suspicious and informed her brother-in-law at 2:00 a.m.; his mobile handset did not respond multiple attempts. Search started in the morning to find the dead body lying in a pool of blood in a field; he was done to death by unknown assailant(s) with fire shots; stricken by shock, the family was clueless about the motive behind the crime. As investigation progressed, the petitioner was taken on board as a suspect on the basis of complainant's supplementary statement dated 26.2.2020 wherein Sajid Ali Shah was also arrayed as an accomplice for the murder in the backdrop of a monetary dispute; the latter pursuant to a disclosure, led to the recovery of a .30 caliber pistol, a weapon that did not forensically tally with the casings secured during spot inspection. Semi burnt cell phone handsets used by the deceased, concealed underneath the soil, were recovered at petitioner's instance vide inventory dated 25.2.2020.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Be that as it may, complainant's strong belief about petitioner's culpability notwithstanding, evidentiary value of various pieces of prosecution evidence hitherto collected has to survive judicial scrutiny to cross the barriers of rules of evidence; the exercise has admittedly not yet commenced. Prosecution for the present is not possessed with any digital proof to establish sub-scriptive nexus between the deceased and the handsets. Call Detail Record (C.D.R.) purportedly suggestive of conversation between the deceased and the accused shortly before his death, nonetheless, sans contents/details thereof. Without prejudice to the merits of the prosecution case, to be essentially settled by the trial Court, nonetheless, petitioner's case squarely falls within the remit of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; a case for his release on bail stands made out. Criminal Petition No.500 of 2020 is converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner/appellant shall be released on his furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Judge. MWA/K-4/SC Bail granted.