Mst. Shamshad Bibi vs Rasheed Ahmed Etc.
The petitioner filed a criminal petition challenging the dismissal of her private complaint under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of the complaint based on an inquiry report regarding an alleged extra-judicial confession was legally sustainable when witnesses purportedly turned hostile during the inquiry under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the complaint as there was no evidence of worth consideration connecting the respondents to the alleged murder, noting that the occurrence took place years prior and the medical board could not determine the cause of death due to the lapse of time. The key principle laid down is that a private criminal complaint cannot proceed to summon accused persons in the absence of tangible connecting evidence or credible material substantiating the allegations on record.
- Whether a private complaint for murder can be dismissed under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when inquiry witnesses fail to support the extra-judicial confession?
- Can accused persons be summoned for trial solely on the basis of a stale extra-judicial confession unsupported by medical or other tangible evidence?
- Is a revisional or constitutional challenge maintainable against the dismissal of a criminal complaint where no reliable connecting evidence exists on record?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
M.A. ZAFAR, J.--Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 302/34, PPC against the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 alleging therein that his daughter was married with Muhammad Ramzan respondent No. 2. About 8/9 years ago. Rasheed Ahmed .Respondent No. 1 and Abid Ali respondent No: 3 are father and son. It was further alleged that the complainant's daughter was living happily with her husband, but the other respondents Rasheed and Abid were unhappy with the matrimonial life of Muhammad Ramzan and Naheed Akhtar deceased. They gave threats to complainant's daughter to leave the house and 3/4 years back, all the three respondents murdered his daughter Naheed Akhtar by strangulation. This fact came to his knowledge through the witnesses namely Akram son of Muhammad and Abdul Jabbar s/o Fazal Mehmood no Chak No. 98-G.B., Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad before whom the respondents confessed that they murdered Naheed Akhtar by strangulation and they committed mistake.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite giving information, the police did not take any action, so constrained with the situation, he filed a petition under Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala vide orders dated 24.01.2007. It has been further alleged that the petitioner filed an application before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate for exhumation of the dead-body which was done and in the report of Medical Board, the cause of death was not determined due to lapse of time, therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after recording cursory statement of the complainant on 19.1.2008, referred the inquiry to Ishtiaq Rasool, Inspector/Incharge Motor Transport Faisalabad and learned Additional Sessions Judge basing on his report, dismissed the complaint.
3. The operative part "of the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as under:- "I have gone through the complaint filed by the complainant and have appreciated the same vis- a-vis statement of the complaint, record available on file and report submitted by police. The complainant has based her complaint on extra-judicial confession of accused made before the PWs Akram and Abdul Jabbar. Both the above-said PWs have appeared before Inquiry Officer and both have denied that accused had made extra-judicial confession before them. The ownself of the complainant was neither allegedly present at the time of occurrence nor she was present at the time of allegedly extra-judicial confession made by accused. Hence, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the murder of Mst. Naheed Akhtar. Under the circumstances, there is no evidence bn record to summon the accused to face criminal trial before this Court.
Resultantly, the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses of extra-judicial confession supported the petitioner's case during inquiry as envisaged under Section 202, Cr.P.C. But the inquiry officer wrongly stated in the report that they did not support the prosecution.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly passed the order on the basis of. Available record. He further submits that suit for the recovery of dowry filed by. The petitioner's husband qua the dowry articles of his daughter Mst.
Naheed was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2008 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Jaranwala and appeal filed by Abdul Ghafoor against the present respondents was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.2.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge Jaranwala.
6. The alleged occurrence took place 3% years prior to the filing of complaint on 24.12.2008. There is no evidence of worth consideration available on record to connect the respondents with the commission of offence and no exception can be taken to the order passed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge Jaranwala dismissing the complaint.
7. Resultantly, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.