Salahuddin v. The State,
Bench: Syeda Tahira Safdar
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved two men, Salahuddin and Wali Khan, who were named in a criminal FIR along with several co-accused. The FIR alleged that weapons had been recovered from two of their co-accused, who were also accused of firing shots, but no weapons were recovered from the petitioners themselves, and the FIR did not describe them performing any specific act in the alleged offence. Notably, the case against those co-accused was later allowed to be withdrawn by the prosecution, while the petitioners remained charged. The petitioners asked the trial court to acquit them early under Section 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows premature acquittal when there is no reasonable chance of conviction. The trial court refused, saying the case was at an advanced stage and that material witnesses still needed to be examined, without naming who those witnesses were.
The Balochistan High Court reviewed the evidence, including witness statements, and found that no witness placed the petitioners at the scene with any specific role in the crime, and one witness's testimony merely concerned recovery of empty shells. The court concluded there was no real evidence against the petitioners beyond mere presence, and that letting the more seriously implicated co-accused go free while pursuing the case against the petitioners suggested bad faith by the prosecution. The court allowed the petition and acquitted both men.
This case matters because it shows courts can end unjustified prosecutions early when evidence is clearly insufficient, protecting individuals from being kept unfairly on trial.
اس مقدمے میں دو افراد، صلاح الدین اور ولی خان، شامل تھے جن کا نام ایک فوجداری ایف آئی آر میں کئی دیگر ملزمان کے ساتھ درج تھا۔ ایف آئی آر میں الزام لگایا گیا تھا کہ ان کے دو ساتھی ملزمان سے اسلحہ برآمد ہوا تھا اور ان پر فائرنگ کرنے کا بھی الزام تھا، لیکن درخواست گزاروں سے کوئی اسلحہ برآمد نہیں ہوا تھا اور ایف آئی آر میں ان کی جانب سے مبینہ جرم میں کوئی مخصوص کردار ادا کرنے کا ذکر بھی نہیں تھا۔ قابلِ ذکر بات یہ ہے کہ بعد میں استغاثہ نے ان ساتھی ملزمان کے خلاف مقدمہ واپس لینے کی اجازت حاصل کر لی، جبکہ درخواست گزاروں کے خلاف مقدمہ جاری رہا۔
درخواست گزاروں نے ٹرائل کورٹ سے استدعا کی کہ ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 249-اے کے تحت انہیں قبل از وقت بری کیا جائے، جو ایسی صورت میں بریت کی اجازت دیتی ہے جہاں سزا کا کوئی معقول امکان نہ ہو۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے یہ استدعا مسترد کر دی اور کہا کہ مقدمہ ایک اعلیٰ مرحلے میں پہنچ چک
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2012 M L D 1805
[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
SALAHUDDIN and another ---Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Quashment No. 267 of 2012 , decided on 4th September, 2012.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 249 -A---Quashment of proceedings ---No evidence against accused persons, except their presence at site -No overt act assigned ---Inference of mala fide of prosecution ---Case to the extent of co -accused allowed to be withdrawn ---Effect ---Trial Court declined application of accused persons filed under S. 249 -A, Cr.P.C, seeking their acquittal, on grounds that case was at a mature stage and because material witnesses were yet to be examined ---Validity --- Trial Court failed to disclose the material witnesses, which in its opinion were still to be examined ---Case to the extent of co -accused persons was allowed to be withdrawn by the prosecution ---Recovery of weapon and role of mak ing ineffective firing had specifically been alleged against co -accused persons but they were allowed to go free with permission granted for withdrawal of the case to their extent --- F.I.R. did not speak of any recovery of weapons from custody of accused persons nor were they alleged any overt act therein ---Inference of mala fide on part of prosecution could easily be drawn ---Statement of eye -witness of the incident neither described the presence of accused persons at the site nor described any act on th eir part in commission of the offence alleged ---Statement of police official, who appeared as prosecution witness, was restricted to recovery of empties at the site ---Record did not clearly show whether statement of complainant had been recorded ---No evi dence against accused persons except their presence at the site ---No specific act had been assigned to them in commission of offence ---No possibility of conviction of accused persons even after recording of entire evidence ---Petition was allowed, applicat ion of accused persons under S. 249 -A, Cr.P.C was allowed and they were acquitted of the charge.
Tahir Ali Baloch for Petitioner.
Liaquat Ali for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th August, 2012.
JUDGMENT
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. ---By way of fili ng instant petition the petitioners Salahuddin, and Wali Khan sought Quashment of order dated 28th May 2012 of Judicial Magistrate -IV, Quetta, with further prayer that their application filed under provisions of section 249 -A Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P. C) be allowed, and they be acquitted of the charge. It was contended that they had been involved in the instant case with mala fides, and ulterior motives, as there was no evidence to connect them with commission of the offence. Neither any recovery was ef fected from them nor the offences alleged in the F.I.R. were attracted in the given circumstances. It was further contended that the mala fides on the part of the prosecution were apparent from the fact that the case to the extent of co -accused persons nom inated in the F.I.R. were withdrawn but they (petitioners) were ignored. But the trial court failed to consider this material aspect of the case and refused the application filed under the provisions of section 249 -A, Cr.P.C, in contravention of law.
2. It was argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no recovery was effected from the petitioners, rather the arms were recovered from the co -accused persons. Further this fact was apparent from the contents of F.I.R. despite the same the case was withdrawn by the prosecution only to the extent of co -accused persons; this act disclosed the mala fides on part of the prosecution. It was further contended that the prosecution witness No.1 (PW -1) while appearing before the trial court did not state anything against them (petitioners). Therefore, in view of the facts so stated the petitioners become entitled for their acquittal of the charge. The counsel representing the State contended that there was no material against the petitioners, nor any reco very was effected. Further, there were no witnesses of the occasion to the extent of the petitioners.
3. The perusal of the papers annexed with the petition reveals that F.I.R. No.195 of 2011 Police Station Sariab, Quetta was lodged against several perso ns including Sultan Khan, Surat Khan, Zamanullah, Abdul Wali, and Salahuddin. The record further revealed that though to the extent of accused Sultan Khan, Surat Khan, and Zamanullah the request for withdrawal of the case was declined by the trial court, but allowed by the Sessions Judge. Quetta, through order dated 23rd April 2012. But later in time the petitioners filed an application under provisions of section 249 -A, Cr.P.C, thereby requested for their pre -mature acquittal of the charge, but it was declined by the trial court on grounds that the case being at mature stage, and material witnesses yet to be examined. Being aggrieved of this order instant petition had been filed.
4. The provisions contained in section 249 -A, Cr.P.C. provided a dis cretion to the trial court for pre -mature acquittal of the accused persons. But this discretion is to be exercised keeping in view the facts, and circumstances of each case within the ambit of law. In present case the request so made had been declined by t he trial court on ground that the trial was at mature stage, and only material witnesses had to be examined. But the order failed to disclose the material witness, which was left to be examined. The perusal of the annexed documents revealed that the case t o the extent of the co -accused persons namely Sultan Khan, Surat Khan, and Zamanullah was allowed to be withdrawn by the prosecution with permission of the Sessions Judge, Quetta through order dated 23rd April 2012, while entertaining a petition filed for revision of order dated 13th March 2012 of Judicial Magistrate, Quetta who declined the request. The petitioners feeling aggrieved of the act moved an application for their acquittal, but failed.
5. The contents of questioned F.I.R. No.195 of 2011. Polic e Station Sariab, Quetta, this fact is very much apparent that recovery of pistol and Kalashnikov was specifically alleged from the possession of co -accused Sultan Khan, and Surat Khan with further allegation of making ineffective firing by them. But the F.I.R. did not speak about recovery of any arms or ammunition from custody of the petitioners, nor any overt act on their (petitioners) part. The statements of two prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 had already been recorded. P.W.1 Muhammad Javed was an eye -witness of the occasion: he appeared as witness of recovery of arms used in commission of the offence and their seizure. According to his statement when he reached at the site when accused Sultan had pistol in his hand, and Surat Khan was with Kalas hnikov which were taken into custody. But his statement failed to describe the presence of the present petitioners, nor described any act on their part in commission of the offence. As far as P.W.2 Shah Nawaz Constable was concerned, his statement restrict ed only to the recovery of the empties at the site. From the papers attached it is not clear that whether statement of the complainant was recorded, or otherwise. Because none of the parties produced any such statement, nor referred to it.
6. Keeping in view the material on record there is no evidence against the petitioners except their presence at the site. No specific act had been assigned to them in commission of the offence. Above all the case against the persons who were describe d with an act of firing, and recovery of fire arms from their possession were already allowed to go free with permission granted for withdrawal of the case to their extent. The inference of mala fides on part of the prosecution can easily be drawn, and the benefit occurring thereof can not be refused.
7. In view of above discussion, and on basis of the material on record, it appeared that even after recording of entire evidence there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners in case in hand. Therefore, in given state of facts the further proceedings would be nothing, but an abuse of process of the court. But the trial court not only failed to consider the factual aspect of the case, but also failed to exercise the jurisdiction vests with it. R ather, in contravention thereof arrived to a conclusion, that too without assigning any reason, which is not sustainable. Therefore, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 28th May, 2012 of Judicial Magistrate -IV, Quetta, is hereby set asi de. Consequently thereupon the application filed under section 249 -A, Cr.P.C. before the trial court is hereby accepted. The petitioners Salahuddin son of Malik Fazal Muhammad and Wali Khan son of Haji Faiz Muhammad are acquitted of the c harge in case pursuant to F.I.R. No. 195 of 2011, Police Station Sariab, District Quetta. The petitioners are on bail; their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
MWA/79/Q Petition allowed.