The State through Assistant Advocate-General, Ex-Officio and Public Prosecutor Balochistan, Quetta V. Abdul Wadood ,
PLD 2013 Balochistan 39 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Abdul Wadood, who was accused of leading an armed group that stormed Civil Hospital, Quetta in 1998 to forcibly free two prisoners under police custody, during which police officers were disarmed and hospital staff and patients were held at gunpoint. He was charged under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, a serious offence known as Harabah.
During trial, after eighteen prosecution witnesses had already testified, the accused applied under section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows a court to acquit an accused early if there is no probability of conviction. The trial court granted this application and acquitted him before the trial was completed.
The State challenged this, arguing there was sufficient evidence on record and that the acquittal was premature. The Balochistan High Court agreed. It held that section 265-K gives courts discretion to acquit early, but this power must be used cautiously and only when there is clearly no chance of conviction, with reasons recorded based on the evidence. Since substantial evidence existed and the trial was nearly complete, the trial court should have finished the proceedings, examined the accused, allowed defence evidence, and decided the case on its merits rather than acquitting prematurely.
The High Court set aside the acquittal and sent the case back to the trial court for a proper decision on merits. This case clarifies that premature acquittals under section 265-K should not be used as a shortcut when a trial is far advanced
یہ مقدمہ ریاست کی جانب سے عبدالودود کی بریت کے خلاف کی گئی اپیل سے متعلق ہے۔ عبدالودود پر الزام تھا کہ اس نے 1998ء میں سول ہسپتال کوئٹہ پر مسلح افراد کے ایک گروہ کی قیادت کی جس نے پولیس کی تحویل میں موجود دو قیدیوں کو زبردستی رہا کرانے کے لیے دھاوا بولا، جس دوران پولیس اہلکاروں کو نہتا کر دیا گیا اور ہسپتال کے عملے اور مریضوں کو اسلحے کے زور پر یرغمال بنایا گیا۔ اس پر آفینسز اگینسٹ پراپرٹی (اینفورسمنٹ آف حدود) آرڈیننس 1979ء کی دفعہ 17(3) کے تحت مقدمہ چلایا گیا، جو کہ "حرابہ" کے نام سے معروف ایک سنگین جرم ہے۔
مقدمے کی سماعت کے دوران، جب استغاثہ کے اٹھارہ گواہ اپنی گواہی دے چکے تھے، ملزم نے ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 265-K کے تحت درخواست دائر کی، جس کے تحت عدالت کسی ملزم کو ابتدائی مرحلے پر ہی بری کر سکتی ہے اگر سزا کا کوئی امکان موجود نہ ہو۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے ی