MUHRAM and another vs 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 2 others
This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, which joined the applicants as accused in a murder case (Sessions Case No. 50/2011). The applicants argued that the investigating officer had initially found them innocent and placed them in Column No. 2 of the challan, asserting that the trial court failed to consider their defense documents. Conversely, the complainant contended that the trial court acted lawfully after recording prosecution evidence, which implicated the applicants. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in joining the applicants as accused based on the material on record despite the initial police investigation findings. The High Court dismissed the revision application, holding that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion. The court noted that the applicants were named in the FIR with specific roles, corroborated by medical evidence and the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses. The key principle established is that a trial court possesses the authority to summon or join persons as accused based on judicial scrutiny of evidence, even if the police report initially exonerated them.
- Can a trial court join a person as an accused in a criminal case even if the police report placed them in Column No. 2?
- Is the trial court bound by the findings of the investigating officer regarding the innocence of a suspect?
- Does the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses provide sufficient material for a trial court to summon an accused?
- Section 193, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD IQBAL MEHAR, J.---Through instant revision application, the applicants-accused have assailed the order dated 12.09.2015 passed by learned 1st Addrtional Sessions Judge; Shaheed Benazirabad, in Sessions Case No,50/2011 (Re: State v. Abdul Hadi Parhyar and others) whereby they have been joined as accused..
2. Related facts are that there is dispute in between complainant party and accused persons over house of Haji Zulfiqar Ali. On 11.01.2010 at 7:00 a.m. Haji Ali Hyder, the uncle of complainant, left the house to look after his land. Complainant Hazoor Bux, his cousin Haji Muhammad Yasin and Deedar Ali followed him. At about 07:00 a.m. When he crossed GPS Sawari they saw accused Muhammad Ayoob armed with DBBL gun, Abdul Hadi having repeater, Muhammad Anwar having rifle, Ali Murad having pistol, Moharam having gun coming from Sugarcane and Banana crop. It is stated that Moharam instigated others to kill Ali Hyder whereupon all accused persons fired upon him which hit him and fell down raising cry. The complainant party due to fear stood there. Then accused persons went away towards their houses. Complainant party went over Ali Hyder and found him sustaining firearm injuries. He was bleeding and was dead. After postmortem and burial, the complainant lodged the FIR.
3. During investigation the applicants took plea of alibi and I.O. Found them innocent and placed their names in Column No,2 of chalan. The applicants were joined as accused and N.B.Ws were issued against them vide order dated 03.12.2014. Said order was challenged in Criminal Revision Application No,8-238/2014; before this Court and by consent of the parties impugned order was set aside and matter was remanded to learned trial Court with direction to first issue show-cause notices to the applicants and after hearing both the parties pass fresh order in accordance with law.
4. In compliance of the order of this Court notices were issued and the applicants filed their reply.
The learned trial Court after hearing the parties counsel passed impugned order.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicants contended that the impugned order is totally against the law and the learned trial Court has not considered the documents o of applicants filed in their defense.
He further contended that during investigation the applicants were found innocent and the version of complainant and P.Ws. Was found false and that without material they cannot be joined as accused. He relied upon the case law reported as PLD 1986 Lahore 256, 1996 PCr.LJ 99, 1991 M LD 1977.
6. On the Other hand, learned Counsel for complainant submitted that by the consent of the parties, previous order was passed, thereafter learned trial Court recorded the evidence of P.Ws.
Who fully supported the prosecution case and thereafter learned trial Court joined them as accused. He lastly submitted that the order passed by learned trial Court is in accordance with law.
He relied upon case law reported in 2014 PC r LJ 84 .
7. Learned A.P.G adopted the arguments of learned Counsel for complainant and supported the impugned order.
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and case laws cited at bar. The names of applicants appear in FIR with specific role of firing at deceased which is corroborated by medical evidence. Furthermore, respondent No,2 Hazoor Bux, eye-witnesses Haji Muhammad Yaseen and Deedar, Ali have also fully implicated the applicants-accused in their examination-in-chief recorded before learned trial Court however the cross-examination was reserved on the request of learned defense counsel. It appears that the learned trial Court has rightly joined them as accused and keeping in view the defense plea of applicants, the trial Court has already taken lenient view and has directed them to furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50000/- each with P.R. Bond in the like amount.
9. In view of above, the applicants-accused have failed to make out a case for interference by this Court, therefore, instant criminal revision application was dismissed by short order dated 21.03.2016 and these are the reasons of said short order. Pending application also stands disposed of.