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

MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus STATE


The trial witness's injury to the Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Section 497/498 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860) Section 302 guarantees the injury and reinforces the instances in which the accused participated in the crime. Was not taken His wife, who had a complaint against the deceased, is not enough to be involved in the commission of the crime and needs further investigation.
1984 P Cr. L J 1680

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Zafarullah, J

MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE-Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 438-B of 1983, decided on 18th April, 1983.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-

--S.497/498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-Bail-Accused attributed proverbial japha and lalkara and causing injury by soti to prosecution witness-Circumstances strengthening fact that accused did not participate in offence-Mere fact that it was accused's wife about whom there was grievance against deceased not enough to show his participation in commission of offence-Case needing further inquiry--Bail granted.

M. Sultan Alam for Petitioner.

Ataul Haq Khan for the State.

ORDER

The petitioner and two of his co-accused are accused of an offence under section 302, P. P. C. According to the F. I. R. it was the alleged illicit intimacy between the petitioner's wife and the deceased which led to the occurrence, but the actual role attributed to the petitioner is of lalkara and japha and of causing an injury with a soti to Ghulam Muhammad P. W. The medical evidence, however, does not go alongwith the allegations in the F. I. R. The injury on the arm of Ghulam Muhammad is by a sharp-edged weapon while the petitioner was allegedly carrying a soti. The japha and the lalkara alleged against the petitioner do not appear to be anything more than the proverbial japha and lalkara. The case of the petitioner that he did not participate in the offence, therefore, gains strength from these circumstances. The mere fact that it was his wife regarding whom there was a grievance against the deceased is not enough to show his participation in the occurrence for which two of his brother have also been named as accused; one of whom was actually injured though this fact was not revealed in the F. I. R. To my mind the circumstances of the case are such that the guilt of the petitioner depend on further inquiry. The petitioner may, therefore, be released on bail if he furnishes bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Khanewal.

M. Y. H. Bail granted.

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
online advocate from Dandot 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.