Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1969, decided on 9th February, 1982.
‑‑‑ S. 435/439/203 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34/149 Criminal ‑Prosecution witnesses not claiming to have seen petitioners causing injuries to deceased‑Medical evidence that injuries caused by fire‑arm not sufficient to connect accused with commission of crime‑Case, held, of no evidence‑Revision against order of Additional Sessions Judge remanding case to Magistrate accepted.
Ch.. Zamir Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Mureed Hussain for the State.
Date of hearing : 9th February, 1982.
This criminal revision arises from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal whereby, he on 29th November, 1968 accepted the revision filed by, Muhammad Shafi, respondent No. 2, against the order dated 18th June, 1968, of the learned Magistrate 1st Class, dismissing under section 203, Cr. P. C. the complaint under section 302/34/149, P. P. C. filed by Muhammad Shafi respondent No. 2 againss Noor Muhammad and others.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that Muhammad Shafi respondent No. 2, filed a complaint against Noor Muhammad Abdul Sattar, Jamal ud Din and Nazar Din petitioners herein undo section 302/34/109, P, P. C. which was beard by Raja Adil Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, Sahiwal. The complainant produced as many as 7 witnesses to prove his case. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the complaint vide his order dated 18th June, 1968. Muhammad Shafi, then filed a revision and the learned Ad dJti9nal Sessions Judge‑I Sahiwal, vide his order; dated 29th November, 1968 accepted the revision, remanded back the case to the Magistrate, for summoning the accused persons, and holding a proper inquiry.
3. Feeling aggrieved, Noor Muhammad and other petitioners filed revision before this Court under section 439, Cr. P. C. which was admitted for regular hearing on 23rd January, 1969. Notices issued to Muhammad Shafi respondent No. 2, was received back unserved with the report that he has left his residence about 12 years before and his whereabouts were not known.
4. I have beard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have one through the record available before me. I find that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioners. Muhammad Yusaf P. W. I. sated that when he reached near bridge 45/12‑L, he saw Noor Muhammad armed with a gun alongwith one person unknown to me. He crossed them and at a distance of one furlong he beard the fire report. It is worth mentioning here that he had said nothing about ,he murder. Muhammad Anwar P.W. 2, Abdul Ghani P.W. 3, Muhammad Yusaf P. W. 4, Muhammad Ramzan P. W. 5 and Muhammad Siddique o, W. 6 have almost given the same statements. They do not claim to have seen the petitioners causing injuries to the deceased. Dr. Habib Ullah, P. W. 7, conducted the post‑mortem examination and found injuries caused by fire‑arm on the person of the deceased. His statement is not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the murder of the deceased.
For all these reasons I am inclined to accept this revision. The impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29th November, 1968 is hereby set aside. The revision is accepted.
M.Y.H. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer