NIAZ HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE
This Criminal Revision Application challenges an order passed by the trial court rejecting an application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought an amendment to the charge framed against the applicants. The applicants, who are police officials, were charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite the police challan having been submitted under Section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in refusing to alter the charge to align with the police report. The High Court observed that prosecution witnesses had categorically implicated the accused in causing fatal injuries to the deceased, which findings were supported by medical evidence. The Court held that a trial court is not bound by the police report and possesses the liberty to frame charges based on the evidence available on record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision application, affirming that the charge was properly framed and did not warrant alteration.
- Is a trial court bound to frame a charge strictly in accordance with the police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a trial court deviate from the police's opinion regarding the nature of the offense when framing a charge?
- Does the trial court have the authority to refuse an application for the amendment of a charge if the evidence on record supports the existing charge?
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 319, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---This Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 23-7- 2007 passed on application of the applicants under section 227, Cr.P.C. For amending the charge.
2. ' According to learned counsel the police submitted challan under section 319, P.P.C. As there was no intention of accused persons to kill the deceased Rano. He further submits that charge has not been framed as per police report but under section 302, P.P.C. And Court has proceeded despite application for amendment of charge, has not altered the charge.
3. ' The learned counsel for complainant and learned Assistant A.G submit that from the evidence recorded so far; it is clear that applicants being police officials have thrashed the deceased to the extent that he died due to injuries caused on temporal region by butt blows of police rifles.
4. ' After hearing the learned counsel, I have observed from the F.I.R. That allegations against the police officials are that they took Rano Khan the son of alleged wanted person and thrown him with force to the police mobile despite his resistence and request by other persons present and when he refused they inflicted butt blows to the body of deceased including temporal region.
5. ' In such situation, the Court was at liberty to frame the charge and to deviate from the finding of the police. It is to be noted that all the four accused persons are police officials therefore lenient view was expected from the police officials. The finding of the trial Court on application under section 227, Cr.P.C. Is as follows:-- ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence come on record. In this case the prosecution have examined P.W. Haji Hakim at Exh.15. P.W.2 Muhammad Hussain Dahri Exh.16, P.W.3 Ghulam Mustafa Dahri Exh.17, who are eye, witnesses of the incident, they have categorically involved the accused persons with specific role of causing such injury to particular accused, which also tally with the evidence of the doctor, therefore, in may opinion the charge has been properly framed in this case, and the same does not warrants any amendment or alteration hence the application in hand is rejected.
6. ' In the above situation and keeping in view the evidence which has been recorded so far, whereby all the P. Ws. Have involved the applicants in a way that they have inflicted serious injuries notwithstanding the fact that they are police - officials and would have acted in a civilized way.
7. ' In such situation, I find no force hence dismiss the Criminal Revision Application.