Ali Ahmad vs Ahmad Faraz alias Moon etc
This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which dismissed a private complaint regarding an alleged murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the private complaint after finding the allegations inconsistent with medical evidence and the investigative record. The Lahore High Court held that the dismissal was justified, noting that the complainant had significantly altered his narrative from the initial FIR, and the ocular account was directly contradicted by medical and toxicology reports, which confirmed the cause of death as cardiac arrest rather than foul play. Furthermore, the court observed that the complainant held a personal grudge against the accused due to property disputes and family conflicts. The key principle laid down is that where a private complaint lacks sufficient material to establish a prima facie case, and where ocular testimony is fundamentally contradicted by objective medical evidence, the trial court is justified in dismissing the complaint in limine rather than summoning the accused to face trial.
- Can a private complaint be dismissed in limine if the ocular account is contradicted by medical evidence?
- Is a trial court required to summon accused persons if the material presented in a private complaint is insufficient?
- Does a significant change in the complainant's narrative between the initial FIR and a subsequent private complaint justify dismissal?
- Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through the instant criminal revision filed under Sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C the petitioner has impugned the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore with the following prayer:- "Under the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that instant criminal revision may kindly be accepted and impugned order dated 12.10.2018 passed by learned respondent No.1 may very kindly be set aside, to meet the ends of justice.
It is further prayed that during the pendency of the instant revision petition the proceedings of the Challan case FIR No.1628/17 offence u/s 34/302 PPC and other proceeding before any competent court may kindly be stayed in the interest of justice.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper , may also be granted."
2. The petitioner Ali Ahmad lodged a crime report FIR No.1628 of 2017 under Sections 302/34 PPC on 28.10.2017 with the Police Station Chung, Lahore alleging therein that his step mother namely , Mst. Razia Bibi along with others have committed murder of his father . After a thorough investigation, the assertion of the petitioner/complainant levelled in the said FIR was found false and frivolous and the police recommended the cancellation of FIR.
3. Feeling dis-satisfied with the investigation the petitioner filed a private complaint and after recording the cursory statements and receiving the inquiry report from the learned Magistrate the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12.10.2018 dismissed the private complaint filed by the petitioner so, the petitioner has impugned the said order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore through the instant criminal revision.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record it transpired that while lodging the private complaint the petitioner has considerably changed his story which he had earlier introduced by way of lodging the above said FIR and the names of witnesses namely , Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Shehzad were not found mention in the FIR who deposed their cursory statements as CW -4 and CW -5.
5. The complainant levelled two different allegations against accused person. First one is that his deceased father Muhammad Ali was subjected to torture and the second is that Mst. Razia Bibi accused who also happened to be second wife of Muhammad Ali poured some liquid in his mouth, which makes his father 's condition precarious and he passed away . The ocular account regarding this allegation is not supported by medical evidence as according to postmortem report deceased Muhamma d Ali died due to cardiac arrest and not due to any injury . The doctor observed one injury on the forehead of deceased but on perusal of record it reveal that the deceased had met an accident 1/2 days before the occurrence and he received the injury in that incident. The police has also collected the record of his treatment on the day of accident, which is available on the record and the doctor categorically has given his opinion that the cause of death is cardiac arrest. The second allegation against the accused Mst. Razia Bibi is that he poured some liquid in his mouth but the report submitted by the department of toxicology reveals that no poison was detected from the viscera of the deceased.
6. The other aspect of the case is that according to the hospital record, Muhammad Ali deceased was shifted to hospital by Ahmad Faraz accused as deceased was having a heart attack and after pronouncing him dead the hospital administration handed over the dead body to Ahmad Fraz who is a distant relative of Muhammad Ali deceased. It clearly suggests that the complainant was not available in the hospital at the time of death of his father . The previous grudge between the complainant and his father Muhammad Ali deceased also evinced from the record as Muhammad Ali deceased previously had lodged an FIR against his sons from his first wife and the petitioner and others had also grudge against Mst. Razia Bibi as his father contracted second marriage with her and he also had transferred a portion of his property in the name of Mst. Razia Bibi accused regarding which some litigation is pending between the parties.
7. For what has been discussed above and keeping in view the statements of the complainant and witnesses and background of the instant case and especially medical evidence which contradicts the ocular account, I hereby hold that there was no sufficient material available with the learned trial court to summon the accused persons to face the trial and the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the private complaint filed by the petitioner. So, the instant criminal revision is hereby dismissed in limine.