PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 129
[Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench]
Present: Miss Aalia Neelum, J.
ALI ZAIN--Petitioner
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 23371 of 2024, decided on 16.4.2024.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 439 & 435-
فوجداری نظر ثانی - جرم کے ہتھیار کی برآمدگی کی جگہ کے سائٹ پلان کو درست کرنے سے متعلق حکم کو کالعدم قرار دینے کی درخواست - چیف ان چیف کے معائنے کے ساتھ ساتھ پی ڈبلیو -1 پر دفاع کی طرف سے کی گئی جرح کے بعد ، دفاع نے آئی او کے ذریعہ تیار کردہ جرم کے ہتھیار کی برآمدگی کی جگہ کے سائٹ پلان کے بارے میں سوال اٹھایا ، گواہ پی ڈبلیو -1 ، سائٹ پلان کا مصنف نہیں تھا اور نہ ہی گواہ تھا جس کی نشاندہی سائٹ کا منصوبہ تیار کیا گیا تھا - درخواست گزار کے وکیل نے اعتراف کیا کہ درخواست گزار نے صرف اعتراف کیا ہے۔ استغاثہ کے گواہ سے واقعہ کی جگہ کی تصدیق کرنا چاہتا تھا- اسی وجہ سے، اس نے جرم کے ہتھیار کی برآمدگی کی جگہ کے سائٹ پلان کا حوالہ دیا - اس نے اعتراف کیا کہ درخواست گزار نے جرم کے ہتھیار کی برآمدگی کی جگہ کا سائٹ پلان تیار نہیں کیا تھا، نہ ہی وہ گواہ رہا تھا یا ، اس کی ہدایات کے تحت ، سائٹ پلان تیار کیا تھا - پی ڈبلیو -1 ، سائٹ پلان کا مصنف نہیں تھا یا اسے تصدیق شدہ گواہ نہیں سمجھا جاسکتا تھا - لہذا ، ہائی کورٹ کے سامنے جو کچھ تفصیلی اور زیر بحث لایا گیا تھا، اس کا خلاصہ درست اور معقول تھا- درخواست گزار کے وکیل اس حکم میں کسی غیر قانونی یا قانونی کمزوری کی نشاندہی کرنے میں ناکام رہے تھے، جس میں ہائی کورٹ کی مداخلت ضروری تھی۔
-Criminal revision--Prayed for setting aside order regarding relevancy of site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence--On perusal of examination in chief as well as cross-examination conducted by defence on PW-1, defence put question about site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence prepared by I.O. to above said, witness--PW-1, was not author of site plan nor witness on whose pointing site plan was prepared--Counsel for petitioner admitted that petitioner just wanted to verify place of occurrence from prosecution witness--For that reason, he referred to site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence--He admitted that petitioner had not prepared site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence, nor did he remain a witness or, under his instructions, had site plan prepared--PW-1, was not a scriber of site plan or could not be considered an attesting witness--Thus, totality of what had been detailed and discussed in order impugned before High Court was sound and reasonable--Counsel for petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in impugned order, warranting interference by High Court. [Pp. 130 & 131] A & B
Mr. Kashif Arshad Malik, Advocate for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 16.4.2024.
Judgment
Through instant criminal revision under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 435, Cr.P.C., Ali Zain, the petitioner, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 11.03.2024 (wrongly mentioned as 06.03.2024 in prayer) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was not allowed to put question to Syed Muhammad Younus Bukhari draftsman (PW-1) regarding the relevancy of site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during cross-examination, Muhammad Younus Bukhari, draftsman (PW-1), was questioned about the site plan prepared by him, and the trial Court has not allowed putting the question to the said witness as a not relevant question. The petitioner be allowed to put the question on the witness about the site plan he prepared and order dated 11.03.2024 to the extent of disallowing the petitioner to be set aside.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. On perusal of the examination in chief as well as cross-examination conducted by the defence on Muhammad Younus Bukhari draftsman (PW-1), it reveals that during cross-examination, the defence put the question about the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence prepared by the Investigating Officer to the above said, witness. It is admitted that Muhammad Younus Bukhari, draftsman (PW-1), is not the author of the site plan nor the witness on whose pointing site plan was prepared. Learned counsel for the
petitioner admitted that the petitioner just wanted to verify the place of occurrence from the prosecution witness. For this reason, he referred to the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner had not prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of the offence, nor did he remain a witness or, under his instructions, have the site plan prepared. Muhammad Younus Bukhari, draftsman (PW-1), is not a scriber of the site plan or cannot be considered an attesting witness. Thus, the totality of what has been detailed and discussed in the order impugned before this Court is sound and reasonable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, warranting interference by this Court.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant petition is without any substance, which is hereby dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Petition dismissed
0 Comments