P L D 2016 Lahore 216 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD MUBASHIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2016 Lahore 216 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUBASHIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2016 Lahore 216 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2016 Lahore 216 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2016 Lahore 216 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD MUBASHIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Aslam Malik for Petitioner.
- Kh. Awais Mushtaq for Respondent No.5.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to Qatl-i-amd and rioting armed with deadly weapons
Giving up of prosecution witness
Petitioner and three others were injured during occurrence in which two persons lost their lives
On the application filed by one injured witness, evidence of petitioner was given up on the allegation of being won over by accused persons
Indubitably legal heirs of deceased could prosecute case on every stage but law did not permit a witness of a case to get other witness given up except who had the status of legal heirs of deceased
Injured prosecution witness on whose evidence petitioner was given up lacked such qualification
Such like practice, if was allowed then it would remain difficult for prosecution to prove the charge
Any of the legal heirs of deceased could step up to prosecute the case in absence of complainant in any eventuality under the supervision of Public prosecutor
High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court as it was not curmudgeon and the order was not sustainable in the eye of law
Revision was allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.
Petitioner stood as injured eye-witness in a case FIR No.282 dated 12-5-2012 under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Agoki District Sialkot on the complaint of Abdul Ghani since departed to heaven.
2. Pithily the arresting facts appertain to the disposal of instant petition are that Saifullah, Manzoor Ahmad, Mubashir and Zafar Iqbal were allegedly caused injuries by the accused namely Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Shahbaz, Muhammad Azam, Kashif Mehmood alias Sain and three unacquainted persons but Saifullah son of Abdul Ghani (complainant) left the transient world to heaven on the way to hospital.
3. Partway trial proceedings complainant Abdul Ghani also kissed the dust.
4. Owing to some circumstances respondent Zafar Iqbal one of the injured PWs moved an application for the renunciation of petitioner (injured PW) as witness on account of his collusion with the accused persons facing trial, the said application was accepted by his giving up. Now the instant revision petition.
5. Deferentially it has been argued that in the case a witness cannot be permitted to give up the other witness particularly when both have equalatory position. Reason being that the procedure does not let, otherwise system of criminal administration may be packed. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be countermanded.
6. Learned Addl: P.G assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has condescendingly rendered contra arguments defending the impugned order by submitting that vividly the character of the petitioner has become dreary as during the proceedings of bail application of an accused person Muhammad Mubashir (petitioner) had submitted his sworn affidavit against the prosecution version, on account of death of the complainant of the case Zafar Iqbal (respondent No.2) as being an injured eye-witness and also as being a seer to strive to prove his faithfulness in proving the charge against the accused persons by an application duly forwarded by Public Prosecutor concerned, got the petitioner given up in the case and the learned trial court has equitably passed the order, therefore, the instant petition may be dismissed.
7. Heard. File has been gone through.
8. Abdul Ghani the complainant was the crestfallen and hapless father of the deceased Saif Ullah perhaps being deprofendus owing to his assassination, prior to the decision of case died. Indubitably legal heirs of the deceased can prosecute the case on every stage but law does not permit a witness of the case to get a witness given up except he had the status of legal heirs of the deceased. Certainly Zafar Iqbal respondent/injured PW lacks the same. Such like practice if is allowed then it would remain difficult for the prosecution to prove the charge.
9. It is however, strikingly observed that any of the legal heirs of the deceased can step up to prosecute the case in absence of the complainant in any eventuality under the supervision of learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel.
10. For what has been discussed above, the court being not curmudgeon but humbly is of the view that impugned order being not sustainable in the eye of law is ordered to be set-aside by accepting the instant petition. MH/M-188/L Revision allowed.