Guidlines for magistrate while granting remand. Following are guide lines laid down in this case:
(1984 PCr.LJ 2588)
1- Magistrate shall not authorize the police remand except on strong and exceptional ground.
2- Magistrate shall record reasons.
3- Copy of order must send to session judge.
4- After expiry of 15 days magistrate shall requires the police to submit complete or incomplete challan and in case challan is not submitted, he shall refuse further detention of the accused and shall release him on bail with or without sureties.
5- Before granting police remand magistrate shall assure about sufficient evidence.
6- No remand in absence of accused.
7- Magistrate shall avoid granting remand at his residence.
8- Opportunity should be given to accused to raise objection.
9- Magistrate shall examine police file.
10- If no investigation was conducted after having obtained remand, the magistrate shall reuse to grant further remand/adjournment.
11- In case complete challan is not submitted magistrate shall commence trial at strength of incomplete challan.
12- If challan not submitted within 2 months, the magistrate shall report matter to Sessions judge and notice to SP Police of district.
13- No remand for sock of cooperation which police.
14- Magistrate shall always give reasons for the grant of remand and adjournment
ABETEMENT/CONSPIRACY
1: BAILS
2006 PCrLJ 1067. Muhammad Mushtaq V/S Muhammad Sikandar & another (SC.AJK)
S.109/458 PPC. Abetment – Proof – Appeal had been directed against judgment of Shariat Court whereby order of bail passed in favour of respondent was maintained. Plea of appellant was that accused/respondent having abetted the offence, he was equally responsible for offence which was committed by other co-accused. Appelloant had also asserted that bail previously having been refused to the accused, there was no justification for the courts below to release respondent on bail subsequently. Validity. No doubt under law person blamed for abetting an offence was deemed to have committed offence himself though he did not do so himself but abetment was to be proved strictly by leading cogent evidence. Mere allegation that any offence had been committed which was the result of abetment, was not sufficient to deprive a person from concession of bail. For the purpose of proving abetment, of accused prosecution was bound to prove that through his instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, offence was committed by other accused. Till that time case of person charged for abetment was one of further inquiry. Courts, in the present case, had found that case of respondent/accused being one of further inquiry, concession of bail had been extended to him. Prosecution having produced so many witnesses, it would not serve any purpose to cancel bail of accused particularly when he had not been blamed for tampering with the evidence of prosecution or for violating terms of bail. BAIL NOT CANCELLED.
1994 PCrLJ 1453. Aslam V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302/34/109 PPC. Accused allegedly abetted commission of offence few days before occurrence. According to police investigations accused had manoevered his arrest in a case U/S 13(d) just for commission of the offence which itself required further enquiry. BAIL GRANTED
1996 MLD 934. Shah Jahan V/S Dr.Adnan & another (Peshawar).
S.302/109 PPC. S.5-A(8) STA Act. Confessional statement of accused had revealed that conspiracy to murder deceased was hatched in the tribal area wherein accused had fully participated. Bail application of accused was dismissed in view of the fact that there was likelihood of abscondence of the accused like other proclaimed offenders in the case residing in tribal area, in case accused was allowed bail on any ground whatsoever. BAIL REFUSED
1996 PCrLJ 751. Muhammad Shafi V/S Munawar Hussain (Lahore).
S.302/324/109/114/34 PPC. Accused allegedly abetted Qatl-i-Amad and attempt to Qatl-i-Amad. Pws regarding abetment appeared in High Court and filed affidavit controverting prosecution story to the extent of allegation of abetment. S.114 provided punishment for abetment if the abetor was present at the time of occurrence and the accused being not alleged to have been so present, Section 114 prima-facie not applicable. Question whether S.109 as amendede, was applicable to the case needed further enquiry. BAIL GRANTED
1997 MLD 1384. Asad & Others V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302/109 PPC. Accused allegedly had a consultation with the main accused for the commission of murder of the deceased. Evidence of abetment against the accused was contradictory who were even found innocent in the final investigation report and were sought to be discharged from the charge U/S 109 PPC. Case of accused, therefore, required further inquiry regarding their role in the commission of the offence. INTERIM B.B.A. CONFIRMED
1997 MLD 2068. Murtaza V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302/109/148/149 PPC. Accused had allegedly been involved in the case due to enmity mentioned in the FIR. Witnesses of conspiracy were not named in the FIR and their statements had been recorded after considerable delay. BAIL GRANTED
1997 MLD 2504.
S.302/324/427/109/148/149 PPC. Murders were alleged to have been committed on the abetment of accused. In the FIR neither any witness of abetment nor the time and place of abetment were mentioned. Complainant had even not disclosed his source of information regarding the conspiracy of murders. Statement of the witness of conspiracy recorded by the police, prima facie, did not inspire confidence. No evidence was available on record to indicate that Klashinkovs were handed over by the accused to the assailants. BAIL GRANTED
1997 MLD 3072. Haji Hussain & 2 Others V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302/380/148/149/109/201 PPC. Accused had been found innocent in police investigation. Nothing could be said at such stage as to whether the principal accused at the time of occurrence had acted independently or under the influence of accused who had allegedly conspired and abetted the commission of the offence. No independent evidence regarding abetment was available. BAIL GRANTED
1997 MLD 3191. Ghulam @ Gomi V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302/109/34 PPC. Investigating officer having not so far collected any evidence of alleged abetment against accused, case was of further enquiry faling within the purview of S.497(2). BAIL GRANTED
1997 PCrLJ 423.
S.302/324/148/149/109 PPC. FIR contained only generaly allegations against the accused for having chalked out a plan about the occurrence without disclosing the place where such plan was made and without showing the reason about the presence of the prosecution witnesses there at that time and prima-facie said allegation did not appeal to reason and appeared to be an overdoing on the part of the police. BAIL CANCELLATION REFUSED
1998 PCrLJ 899. Muhammad Gul V/S The State (Quetta).
S.302/34 PPC. Material on record required further consideration as to whether accused in fact had committed abetment of murder of deceased in view of fact that no other overt act (for example his presence on the spot or any other act was attributed, apart from letter which was yet to be proved to have been written by accused. BAIL GRANTED
1998 PCrLJ 1311. Kabeer V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302/364/201/109 PPC. Case against accused was based on extra-judicial confession made by accused but such kind of evidence was weak evidence. Record established that accused indulged only in conspiracy and abetting of offence of murder which was committed by his co-accused. BAIL GRANTED
1998 PCrLJ 1486. Muhammad Shafique @ Chief V/S The State (Karachi).
S.120-A PPC. To constitute a criminal conspiracy there must be an agreement of two or more persons to do an act which was illegal or which was to be done by illegal means.
NLR 1998 CrLJ 682. Muhammad Akhtar V/S The State (Bahawalpur).
S.302/34 PPC. Accused who is alleged conspirator or abettor but not present on spot would be entitled to bail as his case stands on lower footing than persons who were present on spot and could raise lalkara. BAIL GRANTED
2000 PCrLJ 1171. Malik Muhammad Iqbal V/S Syed Abid Hussain Shah & 9 Others (Pesh. DB).
S.302/324/148/149 PPC. S.497(5) CrPC. Accused having been charged for the abetment of the offence only, their involvement in the conspiracy had to be proved at the trial and their case required further inquiry. Accused being not present on the spot at the time of occurrence, their case stood at a lower footing than the case of accused persons instigating their companions to comit the crime being themselves present on the spot. Prosecution witnesses, despite having the knowledge of conspiracy being hatched did not report the matter to police immediately and kept mum for three days for which no explanation was available on record. Sessions court had granted bail to accused after appreciating the material available on record exercising its discretion properly in accordance with the guidelines provided by superior courts and its order was neither perverse nor arbitrary. No strong and exceptional grounds available requiring cancellation of bail. BAIL CANCELLATION REFUSED
2000 MLD 1172. Wajid Ali V/S Mumtaz Ali Khan & another(Lahore DB).
S.109/302(b). Abetting of offence. abettor would be liable to same punishment just as main accused, including that of death, but not as Qisas but as Taazir. Abettor for all practical purposes, had to face consequences of the criminal act just like the accused who had committed actual offence. BAIL CANCELLED
2000 MLD 1808. Hafiz Abdul Malik V/S The State (Lahore DB).
S.302/324/201/109/148/149 PPC. Accusation against accused was that he hatched out conspiracy and in pursuance thereof his co-accused constituted themselves into unlawful assembly and while armed with fire-arms they resorted to firing in quick succession over an assembly of person who were attending Majlis and in consequence of said firing a large number of persons were killed and sustained felonious injuries. Such startling allegations were supported by statement of two witnesses whose testimony remained unrebutted. Accused appeared to be a great schemer and conspiracy hatched out by him was carried to its logical end which spoke of his fullest participation in commission of cime. Poor eye-sight of accused would not entitle him to grant of bail. BAIL REFUSED
2001 MLD 638. Muhammad Iqbal V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302/109/34 PPC. Allegation against accused was that of conspiracy alone. Co-accused with similar allegation had already been released on bail by the High Court. Fact whether the accused had participated in the conspiracy was yet to be proved. Rule of consistency was applicable to the case of accused. BAIL GRANTED
NLR 2001 CrLJ 39. Muhammad Iqbal V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302/109/34 PPC. Bail granted to accused as it was yet to be proved whether accused participated in conspiracy and further that rule of consistency entitled accused to bail. BAIL GRANTED
NLR 2002 CrLJ 146. Siraj Din V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/324/148/149/109 PPC. Case of accused involved in a murder case would be one of further inquiry when only allegation of abetment has been levelled against him and admittedly he was not present on the spot and had not caused any injury to deceased or PWs. BAIL GRANTED
NLR 2002 CrLJ 244.
S.302 PPC. Accused involved in a murder case on allegation of abetment with no evidence against him except statements of complainant and PWs released n bail as accused behind the bars for more than two years. BAIL GRANTED
2002 PCrLJ 29. Nazar Hussain Shah & another V/S The State (Karachi)
S.302/324/34 PPC. Accused were not nominated in the FIR and had been implicated in the case at a belated stage. Role ascribed to accused was almost similar to that of co-accused who had already been admitted to bail. Evidence regarding involvement of accused in conspiracy through communication on mobile telephone had not positively come on record. Case of further probe. BAIL GRANTED
2002 PCrLJ 400. Anwar Khan V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/324/109/148/149 PPC. Accused was not present on the spot and he was not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased or to any witness. Allegation against accused was only that of abetment. Place and time of abetment and the names of the witnesses of abetment had not been mentioned in the FIR which had been subsequently introduced through statements of some witnesses recorded U/S 161 CrPC. Case required further enquiry. BAIL GRANTED
2002 PCrLJ 1114. Zaheer @ Fauji V/S The State (Lahore DB)
S.302/392/34 PPC. Evidence was in the nature of last seen evidence of prosecution witnesses who saw the deceased before his death in the company of the accused. Prima facie case was made out against the accused for his role in planning the case though he was not seen at the place of occurrence. BAIL REFUSED
NLR 2007 CrLJ 206. Abida etc. V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/109 PPC.Accused involved in a murder case on charge of abetment admitted to pre-arrest bail on ground that there was not prima facie enough evidence available on record against accused to connected them with commission of offence of murder. BAIL GRANTED
2003 PCrLJ 1364. Qadir Baksh @ Qadira V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/34 PPC. Accused had been named in the FIR and a specific role had been attributed to him. Father of the accused who had apprehension of abscondence of the accused, could not be ruled out. Complete challan had been submitted in the court, trial was in progress. BAIL REFUSED.
2004 MLD 1518. Muhammad Ali @ Mamma V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/452/109/34 PPC. Accused according to FIR was only a party to the criminal conspiracy to do away with the deceased. Question whether anyone would hatch up a conspiracy so openly and at a place like graveyard especially when other persons might be passing nereby, was open to serious consideration. Commencement of trial was no bar to grant of bail to the accused. Accused was behind the bars for the last eleven months and he was not a previous convict, BAIL GRANTED.
PLD 2004 Lahore 549.Allama Syed Sajid Naqvi V/S The State
S.302/324/109/427/148/149 PPC. Allegation against the accused admittedly was of hatching conspiracy to cause murder of the deceased. Evidence of conspiracy furnished by the prosecution witnesses in their statement recorded U/S 161 CrPC needed further inquiry as it was yet to be determined whether their claim of hearing the accused directing his co-accused to do away with the deceased and that he would bear the expenses as well as facilitate their escape abroad could have been discussed at that juncture of time. Deceased was an eminent figure and religious scholar of the country. Accused too being the head of the Tehrik would not have hatched the conspiracy in presence of other persons and that too in the house of another prominent political leader to murder the deceased. Conspirators/abettors apparently do not discuss such matters in an open public assembly and take utmost care to keep the same a secret to the maximum extent. Statements regarding conspiracy were recorded belatedly without any explanation for the delay. Bail could not be withheld as punishment. Trial was to commence shortly. Deceased according to FIR was informed of the alleged conspiracy but this fact was neither brought to the notice of the Government nor any report was made to this effect. Accused could not be kept as hostage to secure the arrest of some of the accused who were still at large. BAIL GRANTED
2006 PCrLJ 1720. Muhammad Asif @ Ashiq V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/324/109/148/149 PPC. Accused was not named in FIR. Information of alleged conspiracy was not supplied by witnesses of alleged conspiracy before incident or before registration of FIR to the complainant or deceased for nominating accused in FIR. Name of said witnesses, time, place and manner in which conspiracy was hatched and also name of accused had not been mentioned in FIR. Oral statement of those witnesses who were inimical towards accused, could not be taken as gospel truth. Except oral statements of said witnesses, nothing had been brought on record to support allegation of conspiracy during investigation. Deputy Superintendent of police in the case diary had disbelieved version of witnesses regarding hatching the conspiracy. No sufficient evidence was available on record to prima facie connect accused with commission of crime. BAIL GRANTED.
2006 SCMR 1292.Raja Muhammad Irshad V/S Muhammad Bashir Goraya & Others (SC.FB)
S.302/324/129/120-B/34 PPC. Abetment. Co-accused in the case had clearly said that he was hired by the accused to assassinate the deceased. Evidence brought on record, prima facie, had established that conspiracy was hatched by the accused to kill the deceased as relations between both of them had become so strained that if the deceased had succeeded in furnishing before NAB the evidence of financial embezeelemnt of the funds of the University against the accused, he would have gone behind the bars, thus for such reasons, it was not necessary for the accused to be present at the time of incident. BAIL GRANTING ORDER RE-CALLED.
2007 PCrLJ 1274.Nazar Hussain Shah & another V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/34/109. Normally bail is granted in cases based upon the allegation of conspiracy. BAIL GRANTED.
2007 PCrLJ 752.Mehmood Khan V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/109/34 PPC. Accused was attributed the role of abetting the murder of deceased 53 days prior to the date of occurrence. Only general allegation was levelled against accused by the complainant. Criminal litigation was pen ding between the parties and having come to know of said abetment, no complaint in the shape of FIR or report was lodged with the Police from complainant side. None of nominated accused were present in the meeting where the conspiracy regarding abetment was made by accused. Accused who was brother-in-law of co-accused, was not present on the spot. No specific role at the spot was attributed to accused. Was yet to be established that any abetment was made by accused. Since no role was attributed to accused, mala fides or complainant to implicate accused due to previous enmity, could not be ruled out. No recovery was effected from accused. Accused could not be allowed to be kept as hostage to ensure the arrest of co-accused. In order to avail the remedy of post-arrest bail, concession of pre-arrest bail could not be curtailed on the ground that first he would surrender himself and thereafter he would apply for bail after arrest. If case of accused fell within the scope of further inquiry, he could not be deprived of concession of pre-arrest bail. BAIL BEFORE ARREST CONFIRMED.
2007 PCrLJ 1945.Muhammad Shafa & 6 Others V/S The State (Northern Areas Chief Court)
S.302/109 PPC. Complainant did not claim to be an eye-witness of the occurrence hence merely absence of the names of accused in the FIR did not reflect any adverse effect on prosecution. Statement of prosecution witnesses were not contradictory and they supported the version of prosecution. Record of Telephone Department produced by prosecution materially connected the accused in the abetment of alleged offence. Accused statedly had been seen with the absconding accused after attacking the house of deceased. Prima facie case was in the hands of prosecution. Trial had commenced and case was fixed for evidence. BAIL REFUSED.
2007 MLD 1964.Khadim Hussain Farooqi V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/392/397/411/109/148/149 PPC. Accused was not named in FIR and the only allegation against him was that he had abetted co-accused in the murder and had close connection with accused. Nothing was recovered from the petitioner during the investigation and no incriminating evidence had been collected by the police to prima facie connect him with the commission of the crime. BAIL GRANTED.
1997 MLD 1629. Ghulam Hussain V/S The State (Lahore DB).
S.324/109/148/149 PPC. Accused was not stated to have been himself present at the spot or to have in any manner participated in the alleged occurrence. Accused was only alleged to have abetted the offence and his involvement as an abettor in commission of the offence was yet to be established. BAIL GRANTED
NLR 2004 CrLJ 493. Azmat Farooq V/S The State (Lahore)
S.458/380/411 PPC. Question whether a person would hatch up conspiracy of murder of some one so openly to be heard by others would need further probe U/S 4972(2). BAIL GRANTED
NLR 2007 SD 142. Muhaammad Mushtaq V/S Muhammad Sikandar (SC.AJK)
S.458/109 APC. Abetment is to be proved strictly by leading cogent evidence. Mere allegation of abetment would not be sufficient to deprive a person concession of bail. Case of accused on charge of abetment would be one of furtther inquiry. Bail granted to accused in such case upheld by Supreme Court by dismissing appeal filed to challenge concurrent orders of courts granting bail to accused involveed on basis of abetment. BAIL NOT CANCELLED
2007 PCrLJ 105.Muhammad Amin Qureshi & another V/S The State (Karachi DB)
S.9(a)(xii) NAB Ordinance, 199. “Abetment”. Connivance of accused with his co-accused. Proof. To establish connivance, whichwas a form of abetment, presence of guilty mind was necessary. Omission on the part of accused persons must be coupled with their guilty mind for which at least knowledge of crime was essential. Nothing was available on record to show that accused persons were in knowledge of misappropriation made by cashier. Merely from telephonic conversation, it could not be assumed that they knew about missappropriations of cashier. In absence of guilty mind, failure to collect scrolls and stubs, even if misappropriated amounts were mentioned in them, criminal liability would not be attracted. BAIL GRANTED
2: Appreciation of Evience
PLD 1970 Karachi(DB) 15. Muradali & another V/S The State
S.302/109 PPC. To sustain the charge of abetment of an offence, it is necessary that there must be some evidence of an overt act or omission so as to suggest a pre-concert or a common design to commit a particular offence. So long as the design rests in intention only short of overt act directed to the commission of the offence, it is not indictable in law.
2000 MLD 77. Mukhtar Ahmad V/S The State (Lahore DB).
S.120-A/302 PPC. Conspiracy. Meaning. conspiracy was a scheme which germinated in the dark alleys of sinister minds and would come to light only when its external results were known. Direct evidence for hatching of conspiracy was hard to come by and it would be proved by indirect evidence which could falter and could not result in conviction of conspirators. Happening of an event or existence of a state of affairs was one thing and proving, at a subsequent stage the particular manner in which it had happened or had prevailed, were altogether different things. Non-proving of conspiracy through sufficient evidence of acceptable legal standard would never mean that such an event had not taken place. CONVICTION UPHELD
NLR 2001 SD 73. Imran Ashraf & Others V/S The State (SC.FB).
S.120-A PPC. Criminal conspiracy would not be established when prosecution fails to prove that before actual commission of offence there was an agreement, written or oral, amongst two or more persons for commission of offence as is required under Art.23 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. (2) S.120-A. Privacy and Secrecy of an agreement, whether oral or written, amongst two or more persons for commission of offence is the essence of criminal conspiracy. Held: In circumstances of the case, observations of High court considering voncits as members of conspiracy hatched by them was not sustainable. (3) S.149 PPC. Vicarious liability U/S 149 would not be attracted when prosecution failed to prove all the accused alongwith others constituted an unlawful assembly to prosecute the common object. DEATH SENTENCE SET-ASIDE.
2001 SCMR 424. Imran Ashraf & 7 Others V/S The State (FB).
S.120-A PPC. Criminal conspiracy. Privacy and secrecy of an agreement, oral or written, to enter into a criminal conspiracy is the essence to establish that prior to commission of offence two or more persons had entered into a conspiray for committing an unlawful wrong. APPEAL ACCEPTED
1995 PCrLJ 1424. Yasin Khan Babar V/S The State (Karachi).
S.302/324/34/109/120-B PPC. Abetment. Mens rea. Element of criminality must be clearly spelt out before a person is indicated for abetment. PROCEEDINGS QUASHED
2001 PCrLJ 490. Rustam & 2 Others V/S The State (Karachi).
Consideration of complicity of instigator. Benefit of doubt. Entitlement. Complicity of instigator was to be considered carefully and the Courts of criminal jurisdiction could sift the grain from the chaff and acquit the accused as a matter of abundant caution who was entitled for benefit of doubt without impeaching or impairing the credibility of evidence of witnesses against the other accused against whom overwhelming evidence was available and their involvement was established without any doubt. ACQUITTAL
2002 PCrLJ 1015. Mulasim Hussain @ Dr. Kashif & Others V/S The State (Lahore DB).
S.302/324/34/120-B/109 PPC. Investigating Officer had failed to collect any evidence of alleged conspiracy as well as extra-judicial confession of the accused. When subsequently investigation was entrusted to other I.O., he succeeded in securing evidence regarding conspiracy as well as extra-judicial confession from the accused. Witnesses had been joining the investigation long ago, but neither the factum of conspiracy nor of extra-judicial confession could have been brought into notice of previous I.O. and the witnesses disclosed all said so-called fact of conspiracy and extra-judicial confession as soon as investigation was given to other I.O. Prosecution had failed to bring on record any direct evidence connecting the accused with the commission of offence and had tried to connect the accused by procuring evidence of conspiracy as well as of extra-judicial confession. Such evidence had lost its evidentiary value when witnesses had remained mum for one month, eight days to two months in bringing said facts to the notice of first I.O. None of the prosecution witnesses appeared of his own before the I.O. but all of them were produced by the brother of the deceased which had given further fatal blow to the prosecution stand and it appeared that the same had been planted against the accused. Main role had been attributed to only two accused who had been convicted but one had been killed in a police encounter and other accused was at large. ACQUITTAL.
2007 PCrLJ 1231. Mst. Sajida Bibi V/S The State (Lahore DB)
S.302/460/34 PPC. Occurrence had taken place in the night at 11.00 p.m. in the house of deceased and case was reported promptly by wife of deceased against two unknown accused, who committed murder with dacoity. During investigation, case, however took a turn and complainant/wife of deceased was made an accused alleging to have had hatched conspiracy with others for commiting murder of her husband who used to live in USA and in his absence she allegedly had developed illicit relations with one of accused. None of 15 prosecution witnesses produced by the prosecution, had seen main occurrence of murder of deceased and dacoity committed in the house of deceased. One of the main prosecution witnesses was father of deceased and other was real brother of deceased. Statements of these two could not be relied upon as it was explained by them that statements of all prosecution witnesses had been recorded by CIA police after four months of the incident. Said two witnesses were also interested witnesses as due to dispute over property they had got registered criminal cases against wife of deceased who herself was complainant, but she was involved in the case by said witnesses. Both said witnesses who alleged illicit relations of wife of deceased/complainant with one of the accused, had failed to give any instance when they had seen wife of deceased and said accused while committing adultery nor they had told about the source of their information. Such allegation was based only on suspicion. Possibility of making such allegations by prosecution witnesses in order to grab the property of deceased by involving accused/wife of deceased in the murder case of her deceased husband, could not be ruled out. Statements of said prosecution witnesses could not be held sufficient to prove the motive. Prosecution had failed to bring on record any source through which accused involved in the case had been traced out, while no identification parade had been conducted. ACQUITTAL.
PLD 2007 Lahore (DB) 495. Farman Ali & Others V/S The State & Others
S.302(b)/34 PPC. Co-accused, admittedly was not present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time and the allegation leveled against him by the prosecution was in respect of providing behind the scene abetment to the main accused persons. Similar allegation had also been leveled by the prosecution against two others co-accused who had been acquitted by the trial court. Allegation qua abetment leveled against the co-accused had stemmed from the motive set up by the prosecution, and if the said motive had remained unproved then the allegation regarding abetment had no legs to stand upon and the same had collapsed. Witness deposing about the alleged abetment had failed to attribute any particular utterance to one of the main accused during the alleged meeting between the said accused and the co-accused. Said witness had claimed to have peeped through a window pane of the “Bhaithak” of main accused and had thereby seen and heard the said accused and the co-accused hatching a conspiracy to murder the deceased—- Validity—-. Held, a conspiracy to commit a murder was generally not hatched at open places or within the view or hearing of outsiders and statements made by peeping toms or eaves droppers in support of such an allegation was to be looked at with suspicion and caution. Proseuction, in circumstances, had failed to prove its case against the co-accused beyond reasonable doubt. ACQUITTAL
2001 PCrLJ 706. Shahid Ali V/S The State
S.320 & 109 PPC. Accused was not driving the vehicle which met accident due to rash and negligent driving and resulted into death of a person. Prosecution failed to bring on record that the accused committed the offence with the conspiracy of his co-accused. Where ingredients of S.109 PPC were not attracted, conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court to the accused were set aside. ACQUITTAL
NLR 1997 CrLJ 281.Mst. Naseem Akhtar etc.V/S Mst. Shaheen Kausar (Lahore).
S.494/495 PPC. Charge of abetment/conspiracy cannot stand against co-accused when principal accused husband cannot be prosecuted U/S 494/495 on ground that as Muslim male he could have plurility of wives. PROCEEDINGS QUASHED
NLR 2005 CrLJ 524. Zareef Khan V/S The State (Karachi DB)
S.9 ( c) Control of Narcotics Act, 197. Accused cannot be held guilty of offence u/s 9(c ) when prosecution has not led any evidence to show conspiracy of abetment of accused with real culprits. Without any piece of evidence on the point of conspiracy or abetment of accused with main culprits, conviction/sentence recorded against them by trial court cannot be sustained. ACQUITTAL
ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS
PLD 2007 Karachi 99. Fazalullah Khan V/S Begum Fatima Imtiaz & 3 Others
S.417, 431 & 265-K CrPC. S.408, 467, 468, 471, 477-A & 109 PPC. Appeal against acquittal. Abetment of appeal— Appellant/complainant during pendency of appeal had died— Acquittal appeal could not be taken to have abated on the death of appellant/complainant as once an appeal against acquittal was entertained by the court, it was to be decided on its own merits, irrespective of the death of appellant/complainant. High Court directed that appeal would be heard and decided on its own merits.
S. 249-A or S.265-K Cr.P.C
2014 PCrLJ 1318 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Ss. 154, 169, 249-A & 265-K—Registration of F.I.R.—Purpose—Purpose of the registration of F.I.R., was not meant to hold a person guilty of an offence, but to set the law in motion for the process of investigation; and if at any stage during inquiry or trial, it was found that case was false or could not be made out against accused, then discharge the accused under S.169, Cr.P.C.; or his acquittal could be ordered under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C
Bail Granted
2016 SCMR 18
Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148, 109, 337-F(ii) and 120-B of PPC —-No hard and fast rule existed against considering plea of alibi at bail stage— While granting or refusing to grant bail to an accused person, the court was not required to see and consider the material/ evidence collected in favour of the prosecution but also had to give proper attention to the defence plea taken by an accused person.—————— Bail granted
Appreciation of Evidence
BAIL. S. 497
(2016 Pcr LJ Islamabad. 156)
Deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at bail stage
Admissions by counsel.
1996 SCMR 1553
S. 302/34 Evidence … Admissions by Counsel … Effect … Accused in a Criminal card is not bound by the admission made by his Counsel… (C)
Appreciation of Evidence
BAIL. S. 497
(2016 Pcr LJ Islamabad.156)
Deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at bail stage.
Admissions by counsel.
1996 SCMR 1553
S. 302/34 Evidence … Admissions by Counsel … Effect … Accused in a Criminal card is not bound by the admission made by his Counsel… (C)
ACQUITTED
Whole police proceedings appeared to have been prepared at the police station.
[PLD-1995-Karachi (Sindh)-105]
ABSCONDED CAUSING
2015 SCMR 1696
only because some of the Co-accused persons had absconded causing delay in conclusion of trail was no ground to deprive the accused from bail.
No comments:
Post a Comment
dont use bad word