Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 2337 2022 SLD 2337 2022 SCMR 2077
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 982-L of 2022, decided on 22nd September, 2022.
IJAZ UL AHSAN AND SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JJ
Mian Shah Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Lahore) for Petitioner. Muhammad Jaffer, Additional P.G., Bilal Sulehri, ASP and Muhammad Yasin, S.I. for the State. Muhammad Irshad Ch., Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 2.

SHAMEEM BIBI

VS

The STATE and others

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(2)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,394,107,109,411

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302, 394, 107, 109, 411---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd, voluntary causing hurt in committing robbery, abetment, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused female of advanced age---Admittedly, the accused-lady was not named in the crime report and it was subsequent in time that she was implicated in the case on the supplementary statement of the complainant---Only allegation against the accused was that the whole occurrence was committed by the co-accused on her abetment---However, no specific date, time and place where the conspiracy was hatched had been mentioned in the supplementary statement of complainant---Even name and number of witnesses to that extent was not available on the record---All ingredients of abetment mentioned under section 107, P.P.C. were prima facie missing in the present case---Prosecution admitted that as yet there was no evidence that the recovered mobile phone belonged to the accused and the SIM was in her name---In these circumstances, the Call Data Record (CDR) in isolation did not advance the prosecutions case unless and until some credible material in such regard had been collected---Challan had already been submitted, which meant that the accused was no more required for further investigation---Accused was a lady of 50 years of age, having five children left at home---Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, keeping the accused behind the bars for an indefinite period would not be in the interest of justice---In these circumstances, it was the Trial Court which after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the accused---Case of the accused squarely fell within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., calling for further inquiry into her guilt---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and accused was admitted to bail. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Call Data Record (CDR), reliance upon---Scope---In absence of any concrete material the Call Data Record (CDR) is not a conclusive piece of evidence to…
🔒
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