1986 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. NAZIRAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | Mst. NAZIRAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. NAZIRAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No direct evidence to connect petitioners with offence of murder and prosecution mainly relying on circumstantial evidence of extra‑judicial confession, motive and recovery of alleged crime weapon of offence‑‑Witnesses of extra‑judicial confession. however, swearing affidavits that none of petitioners ever confessed their guilt before them‑‑Recovery of alleged crime Churri by itself not bringing home guilt to petitioners‑‑No evidence collected to prove alleged motive for committing murder of deceased‑ Petitioners allowed bail in circumstances. Sh. Javaid Akhtar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioners. Sh. Javaid Akhtar for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1985. The petitioners are charged with the murder of Mst. Halima deceased, real sister of Mst. Naziran petitioner.
2. The prosecution case is that the deceased had surprised Mst. Naziran petitioner while she was in a compromising position with her father‑in‑law Sakhi Muhammad petitioner as a result thereof they both decided to do away with her. During investigation the petitioners are alleged to have made extra‑judicial confession before Ali Muhammad and Faiz Muhammad. They are further alleged to have led to the recovery of blood‑stained clothes, not sufficient to prove the murder by the petitioners. Sakhi Muhammad petitioner led to the recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri.
3. Bail is urged on the grounds that there is no direct evidence in the case and the circumstantial evidence collected against the petitioners is not sufficient enough to bring home guilt to them. Ali Muhammad and Faiz Muhammad the witnesses of extra‑judicial confession have sworn affidavits to the effect that none of the petitioner had confessed their guilt 'before them. As regards the recoveries of blood‑stained Chhuri and clothes it is stated that this by itself is no sufficient to prove the murder by the petitioners. There is no witness for the prosecution to depose about the illicit intimacy between the two petitioners. Following the completion of the investigation the challan has been put in Court.
4. In these circumstances, I grant bail to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.25.000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Okara. S.G.D. Bail granted.