Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1985 P Cr. L J 875

REHMAT KHAN vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and 2 others

Citation1985 P Cr. L J 875
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2963/B of 1984
Date1984-11-30
Judge(s)Rustam S. Sidhwa
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' This is a petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C by Rehmat Khan, petitioner, for the cancellation of bail granted to Muhammad Azeem, respondent No,2, by an Additional Sessions Judge of Gujrat on 13-10-1984.

2. According to the F.1.11: lodged on 26-6-1984, Zakir, co-accused, inflicted a Chhuri injury in the chest of Javed lqbal, deceased, after Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Azim, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, engaged him in conversation. According to a later supplementary statement of the complainant, stated to have been recorded immediately after the F.I.R., it is alleged that Abdul Ghafoor, respondent No,1, first clasped the deceased in his Japha, whereafter Muhammad Azeem< respondent No,2, gave the deceased a Sota blow on his head and that notwithstanding the intervention of the complainant, Zakir, co-accused, inflicted a Chhuri blow on the chest of the deceased.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel of the petitioner, Muhammad Azim, respondent No,2, and the State and have also perused the police file. It appears that in the F.I.R. And the inquest report there is reference of only one injury on the chest. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No,2 that the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after the postmortem report was received on 27-6-1984, which showed that there were two injuries on the body of the deceased i,e, one on the chest and the other on the head. It is, therefore, submitted that the supplementary statement was recorded on or after 27-6-1984, though it was predated to 26-6-1984. Without giving any finding or making any observation as regards when the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded, I would only say, for the limited purposes of this petition, that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the circumstances does not appear to be either illegal or perverse.

4. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, B the same is dismissed.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch