QURBAN ALI vs THE STATE And Another
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had set aside a trial court's order joining a respondent, Mst. Mehrun-Nisa, as a co-accused in a murder case. The complainant had initially lodged an F.I.R. without naming the respondent, who was subsequently placed in column 2 of the police challan. Although the trial court initially joined her as an accused based on witness testimony, the High Court quashed this order, finding that the F.I.R. and medical evidence contradicted the subsequent allegations against her, suggesting they were a concoction and an afterthought. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the trial court's order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was justified because the trial court had failed to consider the F.I.R. and medical evidence, which rendered the allegations against the respondent unreliable. The principle laid down is that revisional courts may interfere with trial court orders when such orders ignore material evidence like the F.I.R. and medical reports, thereby failing to establish a prima facie case.
- Can a High Court in its revisional jurisdiction set aside a trial court's order joining a person as a co-accused if the order ignores material evidence like the F.I.R. and medical reports?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to join an accused based on testimony that contradicts the initial F.I.R. and medical evidence?
- Does the failure of a trial court to consider the F.I.R. and medical certificate when adding a co-accused constitute a valid ground for High Court interference in revision?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Petitioner lodged F.I.R. On 28-6-1978 at 9-15 p.m. With Market Police Station Hyderabad about the murder of his brother, Ahsan Ali, which occurred about half an hour earlier Petitioner claimed to be an eye-witness of the occurrence alongwith three others. In the F.I.R.
2. He did not mention the name of Mst. Mehrun-Nisa respondent, sister of Punhoon accused, who alone was alleged to have killed the deceased.
3. Police challaned Punhoon accused alone, placing Mst. Mehrun-Nisa in Column 2 in the challan.
4. Petitioner applied for the joinder of Mst. Mehrun-Nisa as co-accused but his application was rejected by the trial Court on technical grounds. Sind High Court, however, in revision set aside the order of the trial Court and remanded the case for consideration of petitioner's application on merit.
5. On remand learned trial Judge examined the main witnesses and they by the order dated 6-7- 1982 joined Mst. Mehrun-Nisa as co-accused.
6. This order was challenged by Mehrun-Nisa in revision application in Sind High Court which succeeded by the impugned judgment dated 16-12-1984. The reasons which prevailed with the High Court may be usefully reproduced hereunder. These are: "The F.I.R. And the medical certificate totally belie the subsequent additions which have been made by Qurban Ali and P.Ws. Shah Nawaz and others regarding the role of applicant Mst. Mehrun-Nisa in this incident. The witnesses had not involved Mehrun-Nisa in this case during the investigation when their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Were recorded. This is the reason why her name was mentioned in the column No. 2 of the challan.
7. The learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order has not referred either to the F.I.R. Or the medical certificate which prove that the subsequent allegations of the complainant and his witnesses regarding the role of applicant Mst. Mehrun-Nisa in this incident is concocted and result of second thought. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of the trial Court joining Mehrun-Nisa as co-accused in the case is quashed."
8. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal submits that the High Court has failed to consider that the trial Court taking a prima facie view of the facts of the case had joined Mst. Mehrun-Nisa as the accused and thereby had committed no illegality, and therefore, interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not justified.
9. We, however, find that the reasons which prevailed with the High Court provided sufficient ground in law for interference, and the High Court was well within the scope of its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order of the trial Court. Since by the impugned order the High Court has not violated any provision or principle of law governing the facts of the case interference by this Court is not justified. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.