Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 839 of 1975, decided on 5th December 1975.

----S. 253 read with Ss. 439 & 344‑Discharge order, propriety off. I. R. lodged with unexplained delay of one day and only partisan witnesses closely related inter se examined‑Despite protracted trial for over 4 years and repeated adjournments disinterested as well as medical witness not produced at trial‑Trial Court, held, justified in closing prosecution evidence, in circumstances‑Order of discharge upheld.

Sh. Bashir Ahmad for Petitioner.

Mushtaq Ahmad filed this revision petition against the order of learned District Magistrate, dated 19‑5‑1975, whereby he dismissed the revision petition.

2. Piarey Khan lodged the F. I. R. of this case on 25‑4‑1969, at Police Station, Gaggoo, under sections 148, 325/149, P. P. C. Subsequently, offence under section 307, P. P. C. was also added. The occurrence had taken place in the morning of 25‑4‑1969. According to the prosecution version, Bashir Ahmad and another constituted an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, caused injuries to Mushtaq, Muhammad Shafi, Mst. Hanifan Bibi, Jamal Din and Maqsood P. Ws. Iqbal, Muhammad Ali and Sadiq P. Ws witnessed the occurrence. The challan was received in Court on 31‑10‑1969. The case remained pending before the trial Court for about 4J years. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 21‑5‑1974, discharged the accused under section 253, Cr. P. C. on the grounds that Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Sadiq, the disinterested witnesses, were not produced in Court; that in spite of 61 adjournments, the prosecution failed to examine the Medical Officer in order to prove the injuries of the injured witnesses; that all the eye‑witnesses were related to each other and there was previous enmity between the parties; and that the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against the accused. Having felt aggrieved of the order of the learned Magistrate, Mushtaq Ahmad filed revision petition before the learned District Magistrate, Sahiwal, which was dismissed on 19‑5‑1975. The learned District Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was unexplained delay of one day in lodging the F. I. R. which reflected adversely on the merits of the case; that Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Ali, the independent witnesses, bad been given up as having been won over and the other witnesses were related to each other; that on account of long‑standing enmity between the parties, no reliance could be placed on the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that without medical evidence, no charge could be framed against the accused ; that the trial pro longed for about five years and 61 opportunities had been given to the prosecution to produce the evidence. The learned District Magistrate did not consider it a fit case for interfering with the order of discharge.

3. It was contended before me that the prosecution could not be blamed for not producing the evidence and it was the duty of the trial Court to secure the attendance of the witnesses by coercive method that the trial Court was not justified in closing the prosecution evidence; that the evidence produced before the trial Court was brushed aside without any cogent reason.

4. The occurrence had taken place in the morning of 25‑4‑1969, whereas the report was lodged on 26‑4‑1969. There was unexplained delay of one day in lodging the F. 1. R. of this case. The prosecution witnesses produced in Court were closely related to each other. There was hostility between the parties and for that reason, the statements of the witnesses could not acted upon without independent corroboration. The case remained pending before the trial Court for nearly about 4J years and in such a long period, the prosecution failed to produce the entire evidence. At certain occasions, the trial Court issued bail-able and non‑bail-able warrants of arrest of the witnesses. Last opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce the Medical Officer and when the prosecution failed to produce him, the tri Court was justified in closing the prosecution evidence. No exception could be taken to the order whereby the prosecution case was closed. Since there was no independent corroboration of the interested evidence and no ca against the accused having been made out, warranting the conviction of the accused, the Magistrate was perfectly justified in passing the order of dis. charge. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned District Magistrate; do not call for any interference by this Court. Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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