2014 PLP 1355 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1355 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Amir Hani Muslim and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1355 (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 2014 PLP 1355 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Amir Hani Muslim and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1355 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sarwar Qamar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner with the Petitioner in person.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 2013.
- Syed Abne Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 22-11-2012 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.16488-B of 2012)
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 337-A(i)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Qatl-e-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah
Generalized and collective allegation
Firearm not used during the occurrence
Strained relations between parties
Possibility of mala fide implication
Specific allegation against accused was that he used the butt of his firearm to cause blows to the injured prosecution witness
Medical certificate of injured witness showed that he did not receive any multiple injuries and the only injury sustained by him attracted S.337-A(i), P.P.C. which offence was bailable
Accused was not stated to have caused any injury to the deceased
Except for the allegation of injuring prosecution witness, remaining allegations against accused were generalized and collective
F.I.R. referred to the fact that during the incident some people from the accused's side also received injuries at the hands of the complainant party
During investigation accused's side also advanced its cross-version of the same incident
Despite being allegedly armed with a firearm accused did not use the same during the incident
Background of strained relations between the parties found specific mention in the F.I.R., thus possibility regarding exaggeration by the complainant party qua accused could not be ruled out at present stage
Possibility of accused's implication with mala fides was not without substance
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed in circumstances, and consequently accused was admitted to pre-arrest bail. Syed Abne Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Ch. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab and Fida Hussain, S.-I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 20-L of 2013 For the reasons mentioned in this miscellaneous application the same is allowed and the delay in filing of Criminal Petition No. 21-L of 2013 is condoned. Disposed of. Criminal Petition No. 21-L of 2013
2. It is not disputed that Muhammad Boota petitioner had not caused any injury to Mst. Sobia deceased and the only specific allegation levelled against him in the F.I.R. is that he had given blows with the butt of his Kalashnikov to Hashim Ali P.W. The Medico-Legal Certificate issued in respect of Hashim Ali P.W. shows that he had not received multiple injuries and the only injury sustained by him attracted an offence under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. which offence is bailable. The remaining allegations levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. were couched in generalized and collective terms and no other specific injury had been attributed to the petitioner therein. The F.I.R. registered in this case itself refers to the fact that during the incident in issue some men and women belonging to the petitioner's side had also received injuries at the hands of the complainant party and during the investigation a cross-version of the same incident had been advanced by the accused party of this case. It is not denied that despite allegedly having been armed with a kalashnikov the petitioner had not fired from the same and this is a circumstance which will be considered by the learned trial Court during the trial while determining the issue regarding sharing of common object by the petitioner with his co-accused. A background of strained relations between the parties finds a specific mention in the F.I.R. and thus, a possibility regarding exaggeration by the complainant party qua the petitioner cannot safely be ruled out of consideration at this stage. In the above mentioned peculiar circumstances of the case the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding mala fide implication of the petitioner in the case in hand has appeared to us to be an assertion which may not be without any foundation or substance. For all these reasons this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and, consequently, Muhammad Boota petitioner is admitted to pre-arrest bail in the relevant criminal case subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Area Magistrate of Police Station Sabz Pir, District Sialkot within a period of two weeks from today. MWA/M-33/SC Bail granted.