STATE Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN

ORDER

This State appeal has been filed under section 417, Cr.P.C. challenging the acquittal of respondents (seven in number) herein by Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha from the charges under sections 120-B, 341/506, P.P.C. vide order, dated 7-6-1987 observing that the F.I.R. disclosed no offence whatsoever.

2. According to the prosecution one Muhammad Khan said to be a party-man of the accused-respondents was attacked and injured on 14-12-1985, had died subsequently whereupon a case of murder was registered against Muhammad Saeed complainant in this case. Muhammad Bakhsh son of Sultan, Gul Sher, Khizar Hayat and Shera. During investigation of this case, Muhammad Saeed complainant herein and Muhammad Bakhsh were declared innocent. As a sequel to this enmity it is alleged that all the accused respondents approached Massan alias Masoo and Nazar Hayat on 31-8-1986 at Ajnala and persuaded them to kill Muhammad Saeed complainant and Muhammad Bakhsh, Patwari and that they would pay them handsomely for the act. The aforesaid Massan alias Masoo and Nazar Hayat declined the offer and told to Muhammad Saeed complainant and Muhammad Bakhsh in Tehsil Office, Sargodha on 1-9-1986, all about it.

3. On 3-9-1986 Muhammad Saeed complainant and Muhammad Bakhsh were going towards Tehsil Office, Sargodha on that day they were required to attend that office. In the way respondent carrying carbine. Muhammad Mumtaz and Sher Muhammad accused-respondents carrying revolvers, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Nawaz accused-respondents had carbines while War Iqbal and Shamsher accused-respondents had carbine concealing something under the armpits. At that time Khizar Hayat, a colleague of the complainant, Zulfiqar Ali and Barkhurdar were also present with them. Apprehending danger at the hands of the accused-respondent both Muhammad Saeed complainant and Muhammad Bakhsh ran into Tehsil Office to save themselves. Further alleged that the police was informed about design of the accused-respondent whereupon Muhammad Khan accused-respondent was rounded up and from his possession a carbine was recovered. This incident was reported to the police through written application by Muhammad Saeed on the basis of which the instant F.I.R. was registered and after investigation all the accused-respondents were challaned to Court.

4. Counsel for the accused-respondents put in an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings urging that contents of the F.I.R. did not disclose, offences under sections 120-B, 341/506, P.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused --respondents under section 249-A. Cr.P.C. observing that the offence under section 120-B, P.P.C. if at all had been committed, the police of Sargodha had no jurisdiction to register a case since it was hatched in a different District.

5. Feeling aggrieved thereby the instant State appeal has been filed against the acquittal of the respondents.

6. I have heard State counsel at some length and perused the record with his assistance.

Section 120-A, P.P.C. defines the offence of criminal conspiracy which says that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done.

(1) an illegal act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, - such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.

It will be seen from the above narration of the fact no agreement between the accused-respondents and Massan alias Masoo and Nazar Hayat for doing away with Muhammad Saeed complainant and Muhammad Bakhsh had been effected, rather the offer made by the accused was declined by Masoo etc. therefore, in my view no offence of criminal conspiracy had been committed. Likewise no offence under section 506, P.P.C. has been disclosed either as no intimidation was done by the accused-respondents at the time of occurrence when they came in front of Muhammad Saeed complainant and Muhammad Bakhsh. No matter even if they were carrying arms on their person at the relevant time, offence under section 506, P.P.C. was not committed because none of them made any utterance or gesture whatsoever calculated to intimidating Muhammad Saeed complainant or Muhammad Bakhsh. For all these reasons, I am sanguine that the learned trial Court while recording the impugned order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. did not commit any mistake in laws or facts. Consequently, I find no force in this appeal and hereby dismiss it.

N.H.Q./S-443/L

Appeal dismissed.