2020 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal trial |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal trial as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2020 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon and Ch. Muhammad Akram Khaksar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 34
Qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention
Petitioner, member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object committed qatl-i-amd of the deceased
Record showed that the petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury hitting on the back of the deceased, which contributed towards his death as suggested by the post-mortem report
Version of the complainant got support from the statements of the witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.
Investigating Agency had concluded that the petitioner was empty handed and mere presence at the crime scene was not based on some convincing evidence
No other evidence was collected during the investigation to record such findings
Trial had commenced and reportedly seven witnesses had been examined
Offence was heinous and catches the prohibition contained under S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Petition was dismissed accordingly.
Not binding on the court.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, J.
Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide No.579/2018 dated 19.06.2018, at Police Station Saddar, Faisalabad, for offence under sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner being member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of its common object committed Qatl-i-amd of Zahoor Ahmad, the deceased.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed that the petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury hitting on the back of the deceased, which contributed towards death as suggested by the postmortem report. The version of the complainant gets support from the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage. The Investigating Agency concluded that the petitioner was empty handed and merely present at the crime scene is not based on some convincing evidence. Ipse dixit of police is not binding upon the Court. No other evidence was collected during the investigation to record such findings. In a similar case titled "Mohsin Ali v. The State and others" (2016 SCMR 1529), the apex Court turned down the petition with the observation, which read as under: "It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the murder in issue and prima facie the medical evidence lends sufficient support to the allegation levelled against the petitioner.... The Investigating Agency had opined in its report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was guilty only of providing behind the scene abetment to his co-accused and that he was not present at the scene of crime at the relevant time...... that the opinion so recorded by the Investigating Agency is not based upon sound material."
4. The trial in this case has been commenced and reportedly seven witnesses have been examined. The offence is heinous and catches the prohibition contained under section 497, Cr.P.C., thus, I would refrain to comment upon the merits of this case lest the case of the parties is prejudice. 4(sic.) For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within three months after the receipt of the copy of this order. JK/M-160/L Petition dismissed.