| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1262 2015 SLD 1262 2015 PLJ 1026 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crl. As. No. 3 & 4 of 2015, decision Dated: 04.06.2015. Dates of hearing: 19, 20 and 25.05.2015. (On appeal from the judgment Dated 24.07.2013 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed Crl.As. No. 998 & 999/2011, PSLA No. 189/2011 and Crl. Rev. No. 739/2011
AISF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE, QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC for Appellants (in Crl. A. 4/2015). Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari, ASC for
Respondents (in Crl. A. No. 3/2015). Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Addl. PG. Pb. for State.
Crl. As. No. 3 & 4 of 2015, decision Dated: 04.06.2015. Dates of hearing: 19, 20 and 25.05.2015. (On appeal from the judgment Dated 24.07.2013 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed Crl.As. No. 998 & 999/2011, PSLA No. 189/2011 and Crl. Rev. No. 739/2011
AISF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE, QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC for Appellants (in Crl. A. 4/2015). Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari, ASC for
Respondents (in Crl. A. No. 3/2015). Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Addl. PG. Pb. for State.
FAISAL NOMAN AND OTHERS
VS
JAVED HUSSAIN SHAH AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 337-L(i), 324, 452, 148 & 149--Anti-Terrorism Act, (XXVIII of 1997), S. 7(4)--Convictions were converted--Enhancement of sentence--Lawyers were gathered within premises of Court to take out rally--Policemen were deployed--Inflammable liquid from plastic bottle syringes was sprayed on lawyers--Determination--Question of--Whether provisions where under appellants were convicted were attracted--Punishment for unlawful assembly in respect of attempted murder and causing hurt--Responsibility of policemen--Validity--Mere, presence of the policemen constituted an unlawful assembly or that they had gathered to riot--And in the absence of the plastic bottles and syringes allegedly containing inflammable material Section 324, PPC or Section 337-L (2), PPC would be difficult to establish, particularly since the prosecution/complainant whilst stated to be in possession thereof did not tender the same in evidence--The policemen's presence at the Court premises also did not constitute house trespass under Section 452, PPC--Prosecution itself had contended that policemen had been deployed outside the Court premises and had prevented the lawyers from taking out the rally, therefore, as per the prosecution version the same cannot be brought within the definition of terrorism under Section 7 (h) of the ATA--It is also of significance that the DPO who was stated to be the instigator of entire incident had not been proceeded against by prosecution--Objective of the police was to prevent lawyers from leaving the Court premises and the lawyers were pushed back with reckless disregard to the fact that some lawyers were carrying lit torches, and it was reasonable to presume that they would be injured if the torches or the inflammable liquid therein fell upon them--Even though Supreme Court had extended benefit of doubt to policemen that they did not spray, any inflammable material on the lawyers the fact remains that a number of lawyers suffered severe burn injuries which was caused on account of the extremely rash actions of the policemen--Convictions were not sustainable under those provisions and Supreme Court had instead…
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