There are circumstances in which mere presence at the scene of the crime is a sufficient overt act to support a conviction, by the application of section 114, P.P.C.

8. Since the petitioner was in dominance over his co-accused, hence the lalkara raised by him can in no manner be treated as proverbial, rather it can best be defined as commanding in nature. In a case reported as Chiragh Din and others v. The State (PLD 1967 Supreme Court 340), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan declined post-arrest bail to an accused attributed role of lalkara with the following observation:- 

“That question must be decided by the trial Court on an appreciation of all the facts, including the degree of interest in the crime possessed by the person who shouted the lalkara and the part he played in the background of the affair. There are circumstances in which mere presence at the scene of the crime is a sufficient overt act to support a conviction, by the application of section 114, P.P.C. Shouting of a lalkara may, in such circumstances, have effect as a further overt act of abetment”

  Part of judgement

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI

Crl. Misc-Post-arrest Bail

1378-B-20

2020 LHC 1641