2020 PLP 1814 (SCMR)
KAMRAN — Petitioner Versus KAMRAN MALIK and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1814 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | KAMRAN — Petitioner Versus KAMRAN MALIK and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1814 (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 1814 (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 1814 (SCMR) (KAMRAN — Petitioner Versus KAMRAN MALIK and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hussain Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court with Siraj, I.O. for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against order dated 5.6.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr. Misc. (B.A.) No.1446-P/2020)
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 109
Qatl-i-amd, abetment
Son instigating his father to commit murder
Act contrary to tradition
Accused was statedly present with other family members outside his home where the deceased persons had come to lodge complaint for a previous incident
According to the prosecution's own showing the accused was not attributed any harm to the deceased persons, and he allegedly instigated his father (the co-accused) to murder the deceased persons
Question as to whether, instead of taking the deadly initiative himself, the accused preferred to persuade his father for the misadventure, a role, contrary to the traditions, brought the accusation within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C., and, would be best settled after recording of evidence
Accused could not be kept behind bars merely as a measure of punishment
Investigation being complete, continuous detention of accused was not likely to serve any useful purpose beneficial to the prosecution
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was released on bail. Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court with Siraj, I.O. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Waseem Aslam, Waqas Aslam and Siddique Aslam, real brothers inter se, were shot dead at 8:30 p.m. on 14.1.2020 within the precincts of Police Station Bhana-Marri Peshawar; Kamran Malik, complainant survived the assault unscathed. Muhammad Ishaq, co-accused, is assigned fatal shots in the deadly assault while the petitioner, no other than his son, is blamed to have exhorted him to take on the deceased. A previous brawl is cited as motive for the crime.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Awful magnitude of violence and resultant loss of life notwithstanding, nonetheless, the petitioner though statedly present with other family members outside his home where the deceased had gone to lodge complaint for the previous incident, is not attributed any harm to them, as on prosecution's own showing, he allegedly instigated his father, otherwise authoritatively placed on the parental rung. Question as to whether, instead of taking deadly initiative himself, he preferred to persuade his father for the misadventure, a role, contrary to the traditions, brings the accusation within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and thus, would be best settled after recording of evidence, therefore, he cannot be kept behind the bars merely as a measure of punishment. Investigation being complete, petitioner's continuous detention is not likely to serve any useful purpose, beneficial to the prosecution. Criminal petition is converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner shall be released on bail subject to 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. These are the reasons of our short order of even date, reproduced below: "For reasons to follow, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bond 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-9/SC Bail grante