Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 497

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),34
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, refusal of---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Although petitioner was not nominated in the FIR, however, after coming to know certain facts regarding the occurrence through witnesses, complainant nominated petitioner along with co-accused through supplementary statement---Both the witnesses also recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C in support of the information provided by them to the complainant---So, it could not be said that such supplementary statement in the case was without any source---Perusal of copy of postmortem examination report revealed that death of deceased occurred due to receipt of firearm injuries on the head---Empty cartridge of .30-bore pistol was found near dead body at the place of occurrence during spot inspection and was secured by the Investigating Officer through recovery memo, which was received by Forensic Science Agency on 11.02.2022 i.e. before arrest of present petitioner because he was arrested on 14.02.2022---As per case of prosecution, during investigation present petitioner made disclosure regarding pistol and in furtherance of said disclosure, he also got recovered pistol .30-bore on 20.02.2022 which was received by Forensic Science Agency on 23.02.2022 for comparison with empty cartridge which was received on 11.02.2022---As per report of Forensic Science Agency, empty cartridge case was identified as having been fired from said pistol---Hence, said repeat had prima facie attained character of relevant fact constituting incriminating material in the case---Punishment of the alleged offence did fall in the ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C.---Trial had already commenced in the case---Role of causing firearm injury was not attributed to co-accused who got bail and nothing was available on the record to corroborate statements of witnesses i.e. ocular version against him---Case of present petitioner was not at par with said co-accused, therefore, principle of consistency did not apply to the case of present petitioner---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Nazir Shehzad and another v. The State 2009 SCMR 1440 and Allah Ditta v. The State 2001 MLD 1123 rel.