Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

FATA versus THE STATE


The Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) Section 497 litigation litigation against applicants is completely based on circumstantial evidence. The body of the deceased has not been recovered and almost a month after the other dastardly articles were recovered, PWs have faced discrimination against the applicants. The deceased was killed under provocation, searched with the accused, the present applicant granted bail in the circumstances.

1977 P Cr. L J 591

[Lahore]

Before Gulbaz Khan, J

FATA AND 4 OTHERS--‑Petitioners

Versus

THE STATE‑Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3053/B of 1976, decided on 9th September 4976.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑

---S. 497‑Prosecution case against petitioners entirely hinging on circumstantial evidence‑Dead body of deceased not recovered and other incriminating articles recovered after about a month of occur rence‑‑P. Ws. biased against petitioners and having a previous enmity‑Possibility of petitioners, having killed deceased under provocation, finding her with accused, existing‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.

Mian Muzaffar Ahmad for Petitioner.

Muhammad Sharif Upple for the State.

ORDER

Mst. Aasia deceased left her house on the night of 5‑4‑76 and reached the house of Mohammad Yar complainant. It became known in the village that the deceased had eloped. The complainant kept the deceased in his house for two days. On 7‑4‑76, at 8/9 p.m. the complainant left his house along with the deceased and when both of them reached near a bridge in the area of Punjab Sangla, the petitioners who were sitting in an ambush came out all of a sudden and threw challenge whereupon the complainant fled away. The petitioners took away Mst. Asia. The complainant made enquiries and learnt through Muhammad Hussain and Ira that they had seen the petitioners taking away Mst. Aasia towards Jhal. The complainant expressed apprehension in the F. I. R. which he lodged, on 21‑4‑76, at Police Station, Sukheke, that the deceased was done to death and thrown in the canal. The case was investigated. The petitioners are alleged to have made confession before Mohammad Abbas and Muhammad, on 6‑5‑76. Fatta led the police to a place wherefrom the blood‑stained earth and some bones were recovered. Shera petitioner pointed out a place wherefrom some woman hair were recovered. Saif petitioner produced blood‑stained hatchet.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was a delay of 14 days in lodging the F. I. R. and the complainant did not give any explanation about the delay that if the complainant had been present with Mst. Aasia, he could not have escaped that Mohammad Hussain and Isa who were cousins inter se were on inimical terms with the petitioners that the recoveries were falsely planted. The learned counsel placed on record a certified copy of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujran wala, dated 20‑10‑73, in order to show that Shera petitioner and his other relatives were challaned for the murder of Qaim father of Ira P. W.

3. The prosecution case hinges on the circumstantial evidence. The dead body had not been recovered. The learned counsel was not wrong in advancing argument that if the complainant had been present he could not have escaped. It stands established from the copy of the judgment that Qaim father of Ira P. W. was murdered in which Shera petitioner and his other relatives were challaned and convicted. Diam father of Mohammad Hussain P. W., was a prosecution witness in the said cage. I have gone through the statements of Mohammad Abbas and Mohammad P. Ws. recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. They are residents of Feroze Watwan. They happened to be present at the dera of the Lambardar when the five accused confessed their guilt. It was a joint confession. The place of murder was an open site and visible to the passers‑by. The recovery of blood‑stained earth and some bones had taken place about a month after the occurrence. Saif petitioner was alleged to have produced a hatchet, on 9‑5‑76. The deceased was closely related to the petitioners. According to the complainant, she had eloped with him and when the petitioners found them together they took away the deceased and committed her murder. If looked from that angle, it would be a case of provocation. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I consider it a fit case for bail. The petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction‑of A. C/Duty Magistrate., Hafizabad.

Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
top civil advocates from Tarnol lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.