2010 GBLR 35 (PLP)
SAFA and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 GBLR 35 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Northern Areas Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J. and Muhammad Yaqoob, J |
| Parties | SAFA and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 GBLR 35 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 GBLR 35 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Northern Areas Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J. and Muhammad Yaqoob, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 GBLR 35 (PLP) (SAFA and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Haq Nawaz Advocate for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60 (13)
Qatl- e-amd
Accused contended that S.34, P.P.C. would not attract, as accused had no common intention to commit offence of Qatl-e-Amd and even if allegation against them were proved by prosecution at trial, there was no possibility of their ultimate conviction under S.302 P.P.C.
Tentative assessment of evidence available on record would suggest active participation of accused in the occurrence
Question of common intention would be determined at trial in the light of evidence and the same could not be decided at bail stage
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
The learned counsel at the outset has submitted that he would not press this petition to the extent of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 and the application to this extent is accordingly dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we found that Riaz and Mir Wali petitioners herein were directly charged in the F.I.R. for firing in the occurrences, as a result of which Mst. Zulakha was injured, while Jamshed having sustained injuries at the hand of their co-accused died at the spot. The contention of learned counsel that section 34, PPC would not attract as the petitioners have no common intention to commit an offence of Qatl-e-amd and even if the allegation against them are proved by the prosecution at the trial, there is no possibility of their ultimate conviction under section 302, P.P.C. The tentative assessment of evidence available on record would suggest the active participation of petitioners in the occurrence, therefore, the question of common intention is to be determined at the trial in the light of evidence and cannot be decided at this stage. Consequently, we without expressing our view on the merits of the case, dismissed this petition. M.H./43/Glt. Petition dismissed.