MUHAMMAD AZAM vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the West Pakistan High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for the quashing of a commitment order passed by a Magistrate. The petitioner and a co-accused were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial for offences under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a criminal case registered against them regarding a shooting incident. The core legal question was whether the commitment order should be quashed on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to implicate the petitioner. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was sufficient prima facie evidence on the record to warrant the trial. The Court affirmed that it is premature to quash commitment proceedings when there is evidence available to implicate the accused, and that the accused must face trial before the Sessions Court. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the evaluation of evidence at the commitment stage is limited to determining the existence of a prima facie case.
- Is it appropriate to quash a commitment order when there is prima facie evidence against the accused?
- Does the existence of named accused in an F.I.R. constitute sufficient grounds to proceed to trial?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order dismissing a petition for quashment of proceedings when evidence exists?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner and one Muhammad Akbar filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5287 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5699 of 1969 respectively for quashing of the commitment order passed against them by the learned Magistrate, Jhelum on the 18th August 1969, under section 302/34, P.. P. C. These petitions came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore, who dismissed them on the 11th November 1969. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the names of the petitioner and the --accused Muhammad Akbar, were specifically mentioned in the F. I. R. And that there was prima facie evidence to implicate them in the case. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. On the 11th February 1968, a case under section 302/34, P. P. C. Was registered against the petitioner at Police ` Station Dina, Jhelum at 5-15 p. m. At the instance of Master Ali Asghar who is P. W. 1 before the Committal Court.
3. The prosecution case is that on the 11th February 1968, the complainant accompanied by one Ghulam Yusuf, came to the house of Inayat Beg deceased. While they were sitting in the courtyard of the house of Inayat Beg, Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Azam, both armed with revolvers, passed in front of the house. Both of them laughed at Mst. Fehmeeda Begum, were of the brother of Inayat Beg deceased. She took exception to this but they started abusing her. The deceased, seeing his sister-in-law being thus insulted, picked up a stick and gave a blow with it on the head of Muhammad Akbar who fired shots, one of which hit Inayat Beg in the chest. When Mst.
4. Fehmeeda Begum proceeded to save him, it is alleged that Muhammad Azam, petitioner, fired two shots with revolver one of which hit Mst. Fehmeeda at her chin and the other hit her daughter Mst.
5. Kausar on her leg. Inayat Beg succumbed to the injury. The petitioner was apprehended and an enquiry was held against him and Muhammad Akbar in Case No. 44/2 in the Court of First Class Magistrate, Jhelum. The learned Magistrate, by order dated the 18th August 1969, came to the conclusion that there was prima facie case against petitioner and Muhammad Akbar for causing the murder of Inayat Beg and causing injuries to Mst. Fehmeeda and Mst. Kausar. He, therefore, framed charge against them under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P. P. C. And committed both the accused to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial. It may be mentioned that the petitioner is on bail and has been directed by the learned Magistrate to appear in the Court of Sessions whenever called for. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5287 which, as already stated, has been dismissed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that on the evidence produced on the record, it is pre mature to say that there is no evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, must stand his trial before the Sessions Court. There is no ground to interfere by this Court. The petition is dismissed.