2024 PLP 20 (SCMR)
FAHAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2024 PLP 20 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ |
| Parties | FAHAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 20 (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 2024 PLP 20 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 20 (SCMR) (FAHAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Liaquat Ali Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
- Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sardar Shah, ASI for the State.
- 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we observe that the daughter of the complainant, namely, Mst. Riffat Bibi was found missing after 07.01.2023, the matter was reported to the police and it is stated by the complainant that she was done to death by her husband's brother, Janas and his son (petitioner). On query, learned Additional Advocate General, KP and the learned counsel for the complainant state that there is statement of one Abdul Haleem under section 164, Cr.P.C. and there is another important circumstantial evidence in the shape of confessional statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. of Janu alias Janas, in which he had admitted his guilt of committing her murder and also got recovered the dead body of deceased after making disclosure. However, we observe that in both statements under section 164, Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in any context. There is no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except an application, which was filed by the deceased a few days earlier prior to the occurrence. In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner calls for further enquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 17.04.2023, passed by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, Abbottabad in Criminal Misc. (B.A.) No. 227-A of 2023)
Ss. 497(2) & 164
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311, 201, 202 & 34
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, common intention
Complainant alleged that her daughter was done to death by her husband's brother and his son (the petitioner); that there was a statement of person "A" recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. to connect the petitioner with the offence; and that another important circumstantial evidence in the shape of confessional statement of her husband's brother under section 164, Cr.P.C, was available in which he had admitted his guilt of committing the murder and also got recovered the dead body of deceased after making disclosure
In both statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in any context
There was no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except an application, which was filed by the deceased a few days earlier prior to the occurrence
In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner called for further enquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and petitioner was admitted to bail. Liaquat Ali Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sardar Shah, ASI for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 17.04.2023, by which the post arrest bail was declined to him in case FIR No.11 dated 20.01.2023, registered at Police Station Battagram, District Battagram under sections 302/311/ 201/202/34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we observe that the daughter of the complainant, namely, Mst. Riffat Bibi was found missing after 07.01.2023, the matter was reported to the police and it is stated by the complainant that she was done to death by her husband's brother, Janas and his son (petitioner). On query, learned Additional Advocate General, KP and the learned counsel for the complainant state that there is statement of one Abdul Haleem under section 164, Cr.P.C. and there is another important circumstantial evidence in the shape of confessional statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. of Janu alias Janas, in which he had admitted his guilt of committing her murder and also got recovered the dead body of deceased after making disclosure. However, we observe that in both statements under section 164, Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in any context. There is no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except an application, which was filed by the deceased a few days earlier prior to the occurrence. In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner calls for further enquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Resultantly, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. MWA/F-23/SC Bail granted.