1994 PLP 2042 (MLD)
RAFIULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2042 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAFIULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2042 (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 1994 PLP 2042 (MLD)?
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: 1994 PLP 2042 (MLD) (RAFIULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Investigating agency had declared three of the four nominated accused persons of the F.I.R. as innocent and instead held the accused responsible for the death of the deceased by firing a shot at him
Complainant, however, stuck to his version given in the F.I.R. imputing the Investigating agency the intention to spoil the case by malicious and false implication of accused and others and he had filed a private complaint reiterating his stand taken in the F.I.R.
Case against accused in circumstances was one of further inquiry and he was admitted to bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Tassadaq complainant of the present case, through F.I.R. No.124 of 1993 recorded on 10-6-1993 at 11-30 a.m. i.e. within about half an hour of the occurrence in question, claimed that his son Mazhar Hussain had been killed through a shot fired by Amer accused who was armed with a rifle and was accompanied and assisted by three others, namely, Ihsan, Saeed and Zulfigar.
2. The Investigating Officers, however, insist that this version of Tassadaq complainant is not correct and Mazhar Hussain deceased had actually died as a result of the cross firing which had taken place between the two rival groups, namely, Gondal group and Bhand group of the village and that Mazhar Hussain deceased who was a member of the Gondal group and, was armed with a pistol, was also a participant of the said encounter and had died in the cross firing. The investigating agency had declared Ihsan, Amer and Saeed, the three of the four nominated accused persons of the F.I.R., as innocent and had instead held Rafiuliah petitioner to be the one who had fired a shot at the deceased and had killed him in the abovementioned encounter.
3. Tassadaq complainant of the abovementioned F.I.R. is stubbly sticking to the version given by him in the said F.I.R. and consequently, is stated to have filed a private complaint on 18-9-1993 reiterating the stand earlier taken by him about the said occurrence and insists that Ihsan, Amer and Saeed were the actual murderers of his son and Rafiullah petitioner etc. had been maliciously and falsely implicated by the investigating agency in the occurrence question to spoil the case.
4. In the above circumstances, I feel that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he is consequently admitted to bail in case F.I.R.! No.124/93 dated 10-6-1993 of P.S. Shahpur of District Sargodha, registered for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under section 302/34, P.P.C. subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Shahpur. N.H.Q./R-147/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.