2017 PLP 16 (YLRN)
MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 16 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Hafiz Shahid Nadeem Kahloon, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ — 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 2017 PLP 16 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 16 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Hafiz Shahid Nadeem Kahloon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 16 (YLRN) (MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Saleem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and common intention
Delay in lodging FIR not explained
Accused implicated on mere suspicion through supplementary statement during identi-fication parade
Overt act of hatchet blows not attributed to accused
Recovery of hatchet effected after two months of occurrence was inconsequential
Accused, along with three others, all unknown, was alleged to have murdered the deceased by inflicting hatchet blows on his body
Occurrence took place in midnight, whereas, the matter was reported to police next day in the morning without any plausible explanation
Accused persons had not been mentioned in FIR, nor had any description of assailants been given therein
Prosecution witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. had not given any source as to identification of accused
Accused had been arrested on receipt of spy information under S.54, Cr.P.C. on basis of suspicion
Prosecution witness had identified accused when he was put to the test of identification parade
Accused and complainant party were close relatives and lived in same vicinity; despite that fact, complainant and prosecution witnesses, who had seen the occurrence, had failed to identify accused at the spot
Accused was introduced by complainant through supplementary statement on basis of suspicion during identification parade
Supplementary statement did not disclose as to how complainant had come to know name of the accused
Overt act of giving hatchet blows to the deceased had not been specifically attributed to accused
Suspicion, however grave, could not take place of connecting evidence regarding guilt of accused
Recovery of hatchet, which had been made after two months of the occurrence, was inconsequential
Present case was, therefore, one of further inquiry, falling within ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C
Bail application was accepted accordingly. [Paras. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment] Jaffar and others v. The State 1980 SCMR 784 and Naeem Akhtar v. The State 1996 SCMR 511 rel. Shaukat Ali Ghauri, A.P.G. with Danish Natkani, A.S.I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ SHAHID NADEEM KAHLOON, J.
Muhammad Ashfaq, the petitioner-accused seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.83-2015 dated 30.03.2015, offence under sections 302, 34 and 324, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kala, District D.G. Khan.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as per FIR is that on 30.03.2015, when the complainant along with Nazir Ahmed, Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Ismail, cousins were sleeping outside their house near to Indus Highway, they heard hue and cry of Nazir Ahmed, they saw that four unknown assailants were giving hatchet blows hitting on different parts of body of Nazir Ahmed and he was injured. On seeing the complainant party, they fled away from the place of occurrence. Nazir Ahmed was escorted to the Hospital for treatment, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries suffered by him on 28.04.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the parties as well as Additional Prosecutor General for the State has been heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly, occurrence took place in the midnight of 29/30.03.2015, whereas the matter was reported to the police on 30.03.2015 at 10:40 a.m. without any plausible explanation. As per FIR, four unknown accused persons had not found mentioned in the FIR, even no description of the assailants has been given therein. Prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. have not given any source of identification of the present petitioner.
5. On 11.05.2015 having receipt of spy information, the petitioner was arrested under section 54 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of suspicion. Thereafter, he was put to test of identification parade, where PWs identified the present petitioner as one of the real culprits of the occurrence. The petitioner and the complainant party not only close relatives but also living in the same vicinity and despite this fact the complainant as well as the PWs who had seen the occurrence, failed to identify the petitioner at the spot. The name of the petitioner was introduced by the complainant through supplementary statement which was recorded by Investigating Officer of this case when identification parade was held on 19.05.2015. No overt act of giving hatchet blow to the deceased has been specifically attributed to the present petitioner. Only suspicion was extended towards the petitioner in the supplementary statement for the commission of offence. This assertion is not admissible in the evidence as suspicion, how grave cannot take place the connecting evidence qua the guilt of the present petitioner; therefore, it is a case of further inquiry. In this regard reliance can be placed in a case reported as "Jaffar and others v. The State" (1980 SCMR 784). It has also been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "Naeem Akhtar v. The State" (1996 SCMR 511), that supplementary statement made by the complainant subsequently did not disclose as to how actually he came to know the name of the present petitioner, when in-fact he being, close relative of the petitioner did not disclose his name in the FIR. The petitioner, therefore, could not be reasonably believed to have committed the offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. The alleged recovery of hatchet is inconsequential which was recovered after two months of the occurrence. Petitioner is behind the bars since 11.05.2015. His further incarceration for indefinite period without conclusion of the trial would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution. Even otherwise the petitioner has successfully made out the case of further inquiry, which also falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted as a result whereof, Muhammad Ashfaq, the petitioner admitted to bail after arrest, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs:2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The observations made in the instant petition are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties. SL/M-271/L Bail allowed.