Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 809 2010 SLD 809 2010 PLJ 99
Lahore High Court
Crl. Appeal No. 382 of 2007, heard on 18.09.2008. Date of hearing: 16.09.2008, 17.09.2008 & 18.09.2008.
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM-UZ-ZAMAN, JUSTICE, KAZIM ALI MALIK, JUSTICE
Mr. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate for Appellants. Ch. Jamshed Hussain, D.P.G. for State. Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari and Khalida Parveen, Advocates for Complainant.

MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE BUTT AND ANOTHER

VS

STATE

Law:

Section:

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 146, 148 & 149--Combined examination of--Charge of rioting--While framing charge under penal provisions of S. 148 there is no need to add S. 149 PPC as S. 146 PPC itself makes liable each and every member of unlawful assembly for offence of rioting--U/S. 148 PPC common object of unlawful assembly has been specified and, therefore, there was no occasion for trial Court to add S. 149 PPC while framing charge of rioting. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 233--Requirement of--S. 233 Cr.P.C. requires that there shall be a separate charge for every distinct offence of which any person is accused--Therefore, framing of a specific and distinct charge in respect of every distinct head of criminal liability constituting an offence is requirement of law--Trial Court should not have amalgamated offences falling under different and independent enactments i.e. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302, 324, 34 & 149--Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Ss. 7 & 7(c)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Both sides concealed and suppressed actual mode and manner of incident obviously with a motive to minimize their respective role--Prosecution and defence did not bring on record true, honest and straight forward versions before trial Court--Trial Court rightly concluded that appellants herein actively participated in occurrence--However, it was not a pre-planned and pre-mediated attack on complainant party--As both sides attempted to minimize their role in occurrence, therefore, cause of occurrence remained shrouded in mystery--It was a sudden flare up without premeditation and without any background of previous enmity--Appellants are not vicariously liable for each and every offence for which they were charged are only liable for their individual role--Appellant fired at deceased hitting him on the leg--Injuries attributed to appellant did not contribute towards killing of deceased--Appellant did not repeat fire shots despite the fact that he was in a position to do so--Convicted appellant u/S. 302/34…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492