2001 M L D 667
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 302/394/458/411‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 265‑D & 439‑‑‑Simultaneous trial in challan case and complaint case ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Trial Court had framed charge in challan case as well as in complaint case by taking cognizance in both the cases simultaneously‑‑‑Set of accused persons in the complaint case and in the challan case were not entirely different‑‑‑ Petitioner had been arraigned as accused in both the cases‑‑‑Trial Court had rightly started proceedings in both the cases simultaneously so that the story in both the cases should be put in juxtaposition for coming to the right conclusion‑‑‑No prejudice, prima facie, seemed to have been caused to the accused by the mode of trial adopted by the Trial Court in both the cases and he would have a fair opportunity of trial‑‑‑Trial Court had specifically observed in the impugned order that the fairness of the trial required that evidence in both the cases should be recorded separately and the judgment in the cases be announced simultaneously‑‑‑Said observations of the Trial Court were just, fair and appropriate and did not call for any interference‑ Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
Nur Elahi v. The State end 2 others PLD 1966 SC 708 and Rashid Ahmad v. Asghar Ali and 2 others PLD 1986 SC 737 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Petitioner.
Mat' Sajid Feroze and Abdul Rashid for Respondent.
Abdul ant for the State.
Date of hearing: 17th April, 2000
HASSAN VS THE STATE
2001 M L D 667
[Lahore]
Before Mian Muhammad Najum‑uz‑Zaman, J
HASSAN ‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Revision No.33 of 1997/BWP, decided on 17/04/2000.
JUDGMENT
A case F.I.R. No. 31 of 1995, dated 21‑.1‑1995 was registered under sections 302/394/458/411, F.P.C. at Police Station, Sadar, Rahimyar Khan to the effect that cousin of the complainant namely Muhammad Akram purchased a new Honda Motorcycle which was parked in his house. On the night between 20/21‑1‑1995 when the complainant alongwith his cousin namely Muhammad Rashid was present in the house of his uncle, two unknown persons entered into their house by scaling over the wall and asked them to hand over the key of newly purchased Honda Motorcycle. One person was identified as Abdul Majeed Dhando in the light of electric bulb. Both of them were armed with fire‑arms who forcibly took the key from the pocket of the complainant alongwith his purse containing Rs.800 and asked the complainant to keep mum. Since the motorcycle was locked, the invaders directed Rashid to drag the same alongwith them. When they travelled about three Acres, the accused persons started breaking the lock of the motorcycle and during this process, the pistol from the hand of one of the accused person fell down which was picked up by Muhammad Rashid. Upon this a scuffle between Muhammad Rashid and accused persons started and a fire was made by one of the accused persons which hit Abdul Majeed Dhando. After this both the above‑said accused persons decamped from the place of occurrence. During this scuffle, Muhammad Rashid also received injuries, he was taken to the hospital by the complainant as well as by other witnesses who were attracted towards the place of occurrence upon hearing the hue and cry raised by the above‑said injured on behalf of the complainant party. Later on, Abdul Mai Dhando expired and during the investigation one Hassan son of Mangoo (the instant petitioner) was challaned.
2. File of this case reveals that Abdul Hameed (brother of Abdul Majeed Dhando) also filed a private complaint under sections 302/34, P.P.C. against Zafar Iqbal, Muhammad Rashid and Hassan (the instant petitioner) in which he narrated that on the night between 20/21‑1‑1995 he alongwith Sharif and Ismaeel was coming back to home. When they reached near Chowk Bahadur, they saw in the light of motorcycle that Zafar lqbal being armed with pistol, Arshad being armed with pistol and Hassan (the instant petitioner) being armed with soti were causing injuries to Abdul Majeed Dhando. Statedly, Hassan (the instant petitioner) caused injuries with soti whereas Zafar lqbal and Muhammad Rashid gave successive fires to Abdul Majeed. The witnesses tried to intervene when the accused persons while threatening them decamped from the place of occurrence.
Learned Trial Court also took the cognizance of this private complaint and summoned the accused persons to face the trial.
3. File of this case further reveals that the learned trial Court had framed charge in challan as well as in complaint case by taking cognizance in both the cases simultaneously. During the proceedings, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the instant petitioner namely Hassan that the complaint case should be tried first while placing reliance upon case titled "Nur Elahi v. The State and 2 others (PLD 1966 Supreme Court 708) and that of "Rashid Ahmad v. Asghar Ali and 2 others" (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 737).
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan vide order dated 21‑10‑1996 while repelling the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner passed the impugned order, hence, this revision petition.
4. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, it has been found that in the police case petitioner namely Hassan was challaned whereas in the complaint case Hassan alongwith Zafar Iqbal and Muhammad Rashid was summoned by the learned trial Court to face the trial. The story narrated in the complaint as well as in the challan case gives two versions with regard to the same occurrence in which Abdul Majeed received injuries and later on died. It is abundantly clear from the facts of this case that set of accused persons in the complaint case as well in the challan case are not entirely different. The petitioner has also been arraigned as accused, person in the complaint case as well. In the circumstances of this case, learned trial Court had rightly started proceedings in both the cases simultaneously so that the story in both the cases should be put in juxtaposition for coming to the right conclusion. Prima facie, no prejudice is seemed to have been caused to the petitioner by the mode of the trial adopted by the Court in both the cases.
Learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has‑ specifically observed that the fairness of the trial requires that evidence in both the cases should be recorded separately and judgment in both the cases should be announced simultaneously and in this way, the accused in both the cases shall not be prejudiced and the accused shall have a fair opportunity of trial.
5. In the circumstances of this case, the observations of the learned trial Court are fair, just and appropriate and does not call for any interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction, instant criminal revision stands dismissed.
N.H.Q./H-28/LRevision dismissed.
0 Comments