1993 PLP 513 (MLD)
INAYAT BIBI — Petitioner Versus ZAFAR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 513 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | INAYAT BIBI — Petitioner Versus ZAFAR and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 513 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 513 (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: 1993 PLP 513 (MLD) (INAYAT BIBI — Petitioner Versus ZAFAR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.302
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.435/439
Revision against acquittal--None of the eye-witnesses including the complainant supported the prosecution case and exonerated the accused by stating that they did not see the occurrence
Recording of the statements of the recovery witnesses by Trial Court, therefore, could not have advanced the prosecution case because their statements at their best could be used as corroboration-- Revision petition against acquittal of accused was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Revision No.333 of 1992, decided on 27th September 1992.
S.302
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.435/439
Revision against acquittal--None of the eye-witnesses including the complainant supported the prosecution case and exonerated the accused by stating that they did not see the occurrence
Recording of the statements of the recovery witnesses by Trial Court, therefore, could not have advanced the prosecution case because their statements at their best could be used as corroboration-- Revision petition against acquittal of accused was dismissed in circumstances. Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah for Petitioner. The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that a case under section 302, P.P.C. was registered against the respondent for the murder of Mst. Zubaida and Munazza. The case came up for trial before Sessions Judge; Sargodha, who vide his judgment, dated 14-11-1991, acquitted the respondent on his application moved under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court before passing an order should have recorded the remaining evidence. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the gun which was allegedly used in the commission of murder was recovered from the respondent. Empties were also recovered. Both the articles were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court should have recorded the statements of the recovery witnesses and should have examined the report of the Expert. Submits that the complainant had admitted in his statement before the Court that he did get a case registered. This fact also proves the involvement of the respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the Judgment impugned. The learned trial Court recorded the evidence of all the eye-witnesses including the complainant. None of them supported the prosecution case. All of them exonerated the respondent by stating that they A did not see the occurrence. The complainant in cross-examination admitted that he had not witnessed the occurrence but was informed about the involvement of the respondent. In this view of the matter, even if the learned trial Court recorded the statements of the recovery witnesses, it could not advance the case of the prosecution because their statements at it best could be used as corroboration. After going through the judgment impugned, I find cogent reasons have been given to which no exception can be taken. Petition fails which is dismissed. N.H.Q./I-48/L Revision dismissed.