Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 985 2026 SLD 985 = 2026 PCRLJ 372
Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench
Criminal Revision No. 04-A of 2025, decided on 28th February, 2025.
Presented By: Before Muhammad Faheem Wali, J
Malik Haider Ali for Petitioner. Sardar Basharat Khan, Additional Advocate General for the State. Aqeel-ur-Rehman Khan Jadoon for the Complainant.

GULZEB---Petitioner

VERSUS

The STATE and 2 others---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),109,201,202,34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 337,338,339

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 13

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 201, 202 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 337, 338 & 339---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of an offence by a person bound to inform, common intention---Pardon to the accused---Scope--Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the father of complainant---Widow of the deceased was also implicated in the case as one of the accused---Prosecution s request qua producing widow of deceased/accused as a prosecution witness in the trial was allowed---Validity---Provision of S.337, Cr.P.C., described that the Court could tender pardon to the accused at any stage of the trial before the judgment was passed with a purpose of obtaining evidence and in the present case it had been done by the Trial Court---However, it was essential that accused/widow of deceased should have expressed her free consent and willingness to become approver in response to a request made by the complainant/ prosecution or by the Court itself, however, the impugned order was completely silent about the factum that whether widow of deceased (accused facing trial) had ever been given an option to exercise her discretion to become an approver and thereby agreed to record her statement with her free will and consent against her other principal and co-accused---In absence whereof, the requirement of the relevant Sections of law could not be considered to have been duly and legally fulfilled--In the present case, the complainant/son/legal heir of the deceased made request for production of widow of deceased/accused as prosecution witness through the Prosecutor coupled with the factum that she had been charged only under Ss.201/202, P.P.C, therefore, the bar contained in Ss.337 & 338, P.P.C., that no person shall be tendered pardon who was involved in an offence relating to hurt or qatl without permission of the victim or, as the case may be, of the heirs of the victim, did not apply to the present case---However, admittedly before…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register