MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Ashraf along with others was reported against vide F.I.R. No.238, dated 27‑6‑1,995 for offences under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Pasroor, District Sialkot.

2. According to F.I.R., the petitioner raised Lalkara and on his instigation, other CO‑accused namely Muhammad Afzal while armed with pistol committed the murder of Abdul Qadus son of the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to F.I.R. it self no at is attributed to the petitioner and only Lalkara is attributed to him and that there is t1o motive alleged in the F.I.R. against the petitioner who has no concern with tile rest of accused. Learned counsel further added that the petitioner has no relations with the accused and is only just a labourer.

4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific role of Lalkara and he being a related to the other accused has the motive to commit the offence.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. During the investigation, it has been established on the record that the petitioner is son‑in‑laq, of Rehmat co‑accused and also the maternal‑first cousin of Muhammad Asghar etc. It was held in the case of Noor v. State 1994 PCr.LJ 311 that Lalkara was always to be adjudged in its true perspective taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. It was also held that the degree of interest in the crime possessed by the person who shouted the Lalkara and the part he played in the background of the affairs is also to be seen. In the A instant case, the petitioner is closely related to the other co‑accused, as such, the role attributed to him is not that of simple proverbial Lalkara but amounts to instigation. The question of vicarious liability can also be gone into at bail stage as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Rashid v State 197.9 SCMR 1992.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Resultantly, this petition stands dismissed.

H.B.T./M‑2700/L Petition dismissed.